Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1993(2)BomCR329
S.M. Daud, J.1. This is a suit for enforcing rights allegedly conferred under conveyance dated 20th March 1951 - hereinafter referred to as 'Ex.B'.2. Ratanchand Hirachand Doshi was the owner of a fairly large and valuable property comprising land and structures thereon which property was acquired by him on 15-4-1947 for a consideration of Rs. 6,55,580.80 ps. (see Ex. A-95). Certain parcels of vacant land from out of this property were transferred under three different transactions dated 28-11-1947, 18-5-1949 and 27-4-1950. That left Ratanchand with land measuring 6350.40 sq. yds. with various structures thereon. The structures included Ratan Villa also known as 'Ratan Villas' or the 'main bungalow', servants' quarters, out-house/guest-house, Secretary's house and garages. The area on which these structures stood covered 1292 sq. yds. A thousand sq. yds. to the west facing the Arabian Sea was required to be kept vacant as per the Government convenient. The vacant area in bits and pieces...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1993Bom327; 2004(3)BomCR371; 1993(1)MhLj685
1. By these writ petitions filed under Art. 326 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the statutory notification dated the 14th of September, 1992, bearing No. BPA-1088/ 1866/EXC-3, issued by the Government of Maharashtra under S. 139(1)(a) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, declaring the area of Gadchiroli district of the State 'as a dry district' by enforcing 'prohibition' throughout the district with effect from 2nd day of October, 1992 and follow-up and consequential orders issued by the Collector of Gadchiroli on 15th September, 1992 directing cancellation of subsisting licences expiring on 31st March, 1993 with effect from expiry of 15 days from the date of the impugned orders. Prior to issue of the impugned notification and the said orders, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2116 of 1992 were holding licences to sell country-liquor in Form Cl-III for the retail sale of country-liquor for the period 1st April, 1992 till 31st March, 1993. The basic facts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1993Bom357
ORDER1. Facts in the background, subject matters, cause of actions and reliefs claimed are identical in both the suits herein. Parties arc also common in both the suits. The order impugned in both the suits, which is main cause of action, is also common. Therefore, applications herein are disposed of with a common judgment. 2. The crux of the dispute is the availing of the benefit conferred upon the occupants of the old building under the amended provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 in particular Chapter VIII-A thereof introduced in the year 1986 (for brevity's sake hereinafter referred to as the said Act) whereby, on fulfilment of requisite conditions under the said Act, the occupants of such old buildings are allowed to form a Co-operative Housing Society under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, in the interest of its better preservation. Various conditions precedents to the said advantage under the said Act will be noti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1996]85CompCas325(Bom)
M.F. Saldanha J. 1. I need to prefix this judgment with the observation that learned counsel appearing on both sides have done a truly excellent job of presenting every conceivable aspect of the dispute that is the subject-matter of this litigation with their characteristic skill and ability, both of which are of a very high order. While deciding on interim application, normally, this court would have circumscribed itself to the minimum and, consequently, refrained from an elaborate adjudication of the manifold facets, both factual and legal, that have been canvassed. It was, however, pointed out to me by both sides that there are something like three dozen interconnected litigations effectively between the same parties, including an identical suit pending before the Calcutta High Court, in all of which proceedings the subject matter of this litigation is in issue. All those litigations are in a manner of speaking dependant on the outcome of this proceeding which explains why the parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(2)BomCR695; 1994CriLJ2393; II(1994)DMC195; 1994(1)MhLj202
ORDER1. This is a petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the orders passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 1550/92, 1551/92 and one unregistered Criminal Revision Application dated 10-2-1993. The proceeding raises really a vitally important question of law which pertains to the right of recovery of maintenance allowance by a person who is entitled to maintenance allowance under the provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by attachment of the salary of the person who is subjected to order of payment of maintenance allowance. 2. Petitioners are the minor sons of respondent No. 1. In Misc. Criminal Application No. 139/98 filed by them under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they had applied for maintenance allowance from their father, the respondent No. 1. The matter came to be decided on 20-6-1989. The respondent No. 1 had committed defaults in payment of the maintenan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1994)96BOMLR315
M.S. Vaidya, J.1. The State of Maharashtra, who were the defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 61 of 1972, on the file of Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon, have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 13th October, 1977. The decree had declared that the orders dated 30th June, 1969 and 5th July, 1969, passed by the authorities of defendants- Government imposing a fine at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day on the respondents/ plaintiffs, was illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs. The decree had also restrained the appellants/defendants from recovering the said fine, in pursuance of the said orders. The claim of the respondents/plaintiffs for a declaration that the action taken by the defendants under Clause 3(b) of the contract was illegal, and that the defendants were, therefore, not entitled to recover the difference in the cost of completion of the remaining work and the estimated cost, was dismissed along with the relief for consequential injunction. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(5)BomCR348; (1994)96BOMLR953; [1996]86CompCas121(Bom)
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The constitutional validity of sections 138, 139, 140 and 141 in Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I. Act'), as enacted by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988, is under challenge in this bunch of six writ petitions. Since all these writ petitions involve the aforesaid common question of law, these petitions are decided by this common judgment. 2. Before we appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel challenging the provisions of sections 138, 139, 140 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as ultra vires and violative of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, briefly the facts of Criminal Writ Petition No. 91 of 1994 may be adverted to. 3. It is alleged in Criminal Writ Petition No. 91 of 1994 Mayuri Pulse Mills v. Union of India that respondent No. 4, Parmanand Mohanlal Rathi, proprietor, Rathi Trading Company, filed a complaint against the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(3)BomCR488; (1996)IILLJ454Bom
Majithia, J. 1. M/s. Oriental Containers Ltd. and Engineering Workers Association, aggrieved against the Award of 11th Labour Court at Bombay in Reference (IDA) No. 711 of 1981 dated June 30, 1994 have moved this Court through Writ Petition No. 2473 of 1994 and Writ Petition No. 1500 of 1995, respectively. 2. To begin with, the factual matrix. M/s. Oriental Container Ltd. (hereinafter 'the management'), after domestic enquiry, dismissed 37 workmen by order of dismissal/discharge dated July 30/31, 1980. Engineering Workers Association (hereinafter 'the Association') raised a demand for reinstatement of the 37 workmen before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Bombay, referred the dispute between the management and the 37 workmen employed under them, under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), with the following Schedule to the Labour Court :- 'The following 37 workmen shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)59ITD156(Mum.)
1. The assessee, a registered as a company under section 25 of the Indian Companies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as Cos'. Act) has filed the appeals fort the two assessment years 1989-90 & 1990-91 and the cross objection against the appeal filed for the assessment year 1989-90 by the revenue department. The appeals involve common issues and because, the cross objection is against the cross appeal filed by the revenue, these appeals have been group together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The common controversy in these appeals of the assessee are in regard to its claim as charitable institution covered by the provisions of section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), that its income are therefore exempt from tax under section 11 of the Act. The revenue department had refused to grant the exemption because, the assessee diverted its attention to the activities of construction of buildings known as Trade Centre, Commerce Cen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1997(75)FLR4]; (1997)IIILLJ241Bom
Ebello, J. 1. The respondent No. 1 herein filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 69 of 1994 before the VII Labour Court at Bombay against the petitioner herein. The said complaint was filed under the provisions of Item No. 1 (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU and PULP Act.) In the said complaint the Respondent No. 1 herein also sought interim reliefs. The Labour Court by its order dated April 28, 1994 was pleased to grant prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the application for interim reliefs. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner herein preferred Revision Application (ULP) No. 58 of 1994 before the Industrial Court at Bombay. The Industrial Court initially granted an interim order. It may also be mentioned that the Respondent No. 1 herein had also preferred revision application which was numbered as review application 7 of 1994. Both the revisio...
Tag this Judgment!