Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1994)96BOMLR846
A.A. Desai, J.1. The question involved in this appeal relates to extent of protection available under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (for short, 'the Act') to maintain one's possession derived through part performance. In the case of Nanasaheb reported in AIR 1957 Bom. 138, the Division Bench of this Court took a view that the vendor is entitled to resist the claim of eviction of a vendor; even if vendee's claim for specific performance is barred by limitation. Subsequently, the Division Bench in the case of Adinath reported in 1991 M. L.J. 256, took a view:The agreement could not be enforced in law since relief of specific performance is beyond the period of limitation. The agreement in question met with its legal death. As a result, the protection under Section 53-A of the Act which flows from such agreement cannot survive beyond its life time which is the source of the protection.8. The defendants were merely prospective purchasers and the title has not vested in them....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The present Public Interest Litigation has been instituted for the effective implementation of the provisions of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975. In exercise of the powers conferred by the Act, the State Government has framed the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Rules, 2009. 2. The city of Pune covers an area of 243.48 square kilometers. The city has expanded in the last several decades by leaps and bounds resulting in a reduction in the green cover. As the population has expanded, unregulated development has resulted in a rapid deterioration of green areas in the city. The Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 (`the Act') provides for the establishment of a Tree Authority in Section 3. The Tree Authority is to consist of a Chairperson who is to be the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation and not less than five and not more than fifteen persons ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1972)IILLJ434Bom
1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by a dismissed municipal employee to quash and set aside the orders of dismissal passed against him and to reinstate him with back salary and continuity of service and all rights, benefits and privileges as if the said order of dismissal had not been passed. 2. The facts of the petitioner's case are that the petitioner was appointed as an overseer in the service of the third respondent-corporation sometime in July, 1948 and after certain promotions and proceedings to which it is unnecessary to refer, he was transferred on October 1, 1962 to the Loan Works Construction Branch, Byculla, and was assigned the work of laying the 6' water-main in the proposed footpaths on either side of Peder Road in addition to other works in progress elsewhere. In January, 1963 he was informed by a circular that he should remain present for a preliminary inquiry against him on the January 29, 1968, which was to be held by the Executive Engineer of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR3431
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The Petition challenges the order passed by the Tenancy Awwal Karkoon under Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). It also impugns the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer confirming the order as well as the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissing the Revision Application filed by the petitioners.2. The land bearing Gat No. 181 was being cultivated by two brothers Baba and Aba Lavand. Each of the brothers had half a share in the property. Since they were tenants on the tiller's day, they exercised their right and purchased the property under the provision of Section 32G of the aforesaid Act. Each of them thus became a deemed purchaser of half the land. The purchase price was fixed for the land and accordingly that price was deposited by the Lavand brothers and a certificate was issued under Section 32M of the aforesaid Act. Sale Certificates were issued and the mutatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(3)BomCR468; [2006(111)FLR743]; (2006)IIILLJ598Bom; 2006(44)MhLj136
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent and at the request of Counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal.A purchaser in a sale conducted by the State Financial Corporation has challenged an attachment levied under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The issues that have been canvassed before the Court here relate to (i) the meaning and extent of the first charge statutorily created by Section 11(2) of the EPF Act, 1952; (ii) whether, as the petitioner contends, the charge cannot be enforced in the hands of a purchaser in a sale conducted under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951; and (iii) whether the charge and the priority created by Parliament in the payment of PF dues is confined to insolvency and winding up alone. We have declined to accept the line of argument pressed before us. The first charge on the assets of the establishment created by Parliament while enacti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(4)ALLMR47; (2008)110BOMLR1469
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The petitioners are 3 out of about 2393 candidates who appeared for the examination conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) in the 2000-01 for the posts of Police Sub Inspector (PSI), Sales Tax Inspector (STI) and Assistant Sales-tax Inspector (ASI). The petitioners contend that as they were declared successful in the examinations, they were called for physical test and oral interview, but have not been appointed to the posts for which the examinations were held and have, in fact, been blacklisted and permanently debarred from appearing in all the examinations conducted by the MPSC, under the order of the Deputy Secretary, MPSC dated 24.8.2005. The petitioners have accordingly challenged the said order. 2. A short chronology of events and dates from the notification under which the petitioners had acted until their final blacklisting and the orders in the proceedings impugned by them require to be first enumerated. 3. On 14.7.1999, a notificatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1990(3)BomCR504; 1991(62)ELT104(Bom)
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner who holds a Bachelor's degree in Arts faculty was employed by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (2nd respondent) as Assistant on April 23, 1966. He was promoted as Class II Gazetted Officer and thereafter as class I Gazette officer to the post of Under Secretary from August 1, 1983. His service were governed by the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979.2. It is the case of the petitioner that on September 16, 1985 the Dy. Secretary and Controller of Examinations of the 2nd Respondent lodged a complaint with the Director of Anti-Coruption Bureaur, Maharashtra State against him and two other members of the staff viz., Shri V.A. Jadhav Superintendent and Shri P.V. Kumavat, Clerk, alleging that they had committed offence of stealing and forging certain records of the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to the said complaint, the officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau visited the residential premises of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1979]49CompCas757(Bom)
Aggarwal, J.1. Both these petitions have been argued together an can be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 627 of 1975 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner is Crompton Greaves Ltd., having its registered office at Bombay. The 1st respondent is the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. The 2nd respondent is the Chairman and the 3rd and 4th respondents are the Members of the Commission. The 5th respondent is the Registrar of Restrictive Trade Agreements. The 6th respondent is the Director of Investigation. The 7th respondent is Electric Lamp ., having its registered office at Calcutta. The 8th respondent is General Electric Lamp of India Ltd., also having its registered office at Calcutta (the petitioner in Calcutta High Court Writ Matter No. 134 of 1975). The 9th respondent is Mazda Lamps Company Ltd., having its registered office at Calcutta. The 10th respondent is Philips India Ltd. (the petitioner in Misc. P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Admit.The Respondents, in appeal who are not appearing, need not be served afresh. Contesting respondents, are appearing. The Appeals are called out by consent of Advocates for the parties who are contesting / appearing. Heard at length for final disposal.2. Status of the contesting parties in Letters Patent Appeal No. 197 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 5993 of 2005 is as follows:[i] Present respondent Nos. 25 and 26 were the writ petitioners. They are hereinafter referred to as Writ Petitioners.[ii] Present appellant was respondent No. 7. He is hereinafter referred to as Appellant.[iii] Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 239 of 2009 was respondent No. 24 in Writ Petition No. 5993 of 2005.3. Parties are referred to in this Judgment according to their status in the writ petition No. 5993 of 2005 for convenience.Respondent No. 2 0 in the Writ Petition, namely Vaibhav Liquors Pvt. Ltd. is a Private Limited Company, who came into the picture in the working of respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1979)81BOMLR1; 1977MhLJ869
Tulzapurkar, J.1. By these two writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-company is seeking to raise two important questions for our determination viz:(1) Whether the requirements of Section 19(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Maharashtra Recognisation of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), are conditions precedent to the filing of an application for recognition by a trade union under Section 11 of the Act or the said requirements could be complied with even during the pendency of such application upto the date, of granting of recognition?(2) Whether while considering the question of granting such recognition under Section 12 of the Act, the Industrial Court should inquire into any unfair labour practice allegedly committed by the union after the filing of the application, but during its pendency and if proved should in view thereof refuse recognition?2. The two questions arise in...
Tag this Judgment!