Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(6)BomCR29; (2002)4BOMLR41; 2002(4)MhLj568
V.C. Daga, J. 1. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Decreeof the Addl. District Judge, Mapusa in Regular CivilAppeal No.64/1990 dated 31.1.1996, reversing the Judgmentand Decree passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, atPanaji in Civil Suit No.35/80/C dated 28.9.1990, whereinthe suit for eviction has been found to be notmaintainable, in view of the extension of Rent ControlLegislation to the area in which the suit building issituated.FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2. The factual background of the case can bestated quite shortly.3. The original plaintiff, late Shri DattatrayaWalaulikar vide Agreement dated 2.8.1971 had allowed oneVasudeo Dhempe to use western half portion of the housesituated in Village of Nerul, Bardez, Goa on monthlypayment of Rs.25/- for a period of 36 months on the leaveand licence basis.4. The original licensee, said Shri VasudeoDhempe left for heavenly abode on 2.7.1972. The presentdefendants continued to use and occupy the said house ashis heirs and successors. The de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(4)ALLMR50; (1997)99BOMLR425
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The present appellants are the heirs of the original defendant and the present respondents are the heirs of the original plaintiffs. The original plaintiffs filed a suit against the original defendant being Civil Suit No. 30/69 before the Court of the Civil Judge S.D., Panaji. The suit was filed under Decree No. 43525 of the Portuguese Rent Legislation then applicable to the area where the suit house was situated. The cause of action insofar as the Plaintiffs were concerned was that the Defendant had failed to deposit the rent reserved and further the rent had also not been paid on time. The original Plaintiffs in paragraph 14 of the plaint claimed an amount of Rs. 8,665.32 on various counts as arrears of rent. The original Defendant contested the claim of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant contended that there was another proceeding between the parties which was disposed by judgment and decree dated 22.12.63 by making some observations. The said observations though plead...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1986(3)BomCR33; 1986MhLJ414
..... forms for determination of fair rent in respect of old and new houses in the delhi and ajmer merwara rent control act 1947 was violative of article 14. the said act was brought into force on 24-3-1947 and applied only to houses completed before that date. in september 1947 section 7-a alongwith schedule iv was introduced by an amendment bringing into the purview of the act even buildings constructed after 24-3-1947. while under the unamended act, the courts were empowered to determine standard rent in respect of houses ..... on a consideration of all the circumstances of the case, including any amount paid or to be paid by the tenant by way of premium or any other like sum in addition to rent, the controller finds that the rent of the house is excessive, he shall determine the fair rent to be charged for the house.5. in fixing the fair rent under clause 4 the controller shall have due regard to the prevailing rates of rent for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the twelve months prior to the 1st april, 1940 and to the rental value as entered in the municipal or local ..... under the act known as the c.p. and berar house rent control order 1947 was published in c.p. and berar gazette extraordinary dated 11-1-1947. the hrc order is the third order under the act. by clause 31(1) of the hrc order the two earlier orders of 1946 and 1947 were repealed with usual saving provision contained in clause 31(2). the hrc order was amended on 21-11-1952 by which clauses .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(4)BomCR136; (2001)3BOMLR518
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Judgment Debtors for setting aside the insolvency Notice dated 30th August. 1999, taken out by the Decree Holder. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this Notice of Motion are that in Appeal No. 636 of 1991 the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 26th June. 1992 passed a consent decree, which according to the Decree Holder is a decree for payment of money. The Decree Holder took out an Insolvency Notice dated 30th August, 1999 and served it on the judgment Debtor on 20th September, 1999. The Notice was taken out under the provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. On being served with that notice the Judgment Debtor has taken out this Notice of Motion for, setting aside that Insolvency Notice on various grounds including the ground that the decree pursuant to which this Insolvency Notice has been taken out is not enforceable, as the decree holder has not obtained a leave of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Revati Mohite Dere, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Learned Counsel waive notice for the respective respondents. 3. Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. By this PIL, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are social activists, have alleged gender discrimination and arbitrary denial of access to women in the sanctum sanctorum at the Haji Ali Dargah. 5. The petitioners state that they are the office bearers of `Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan' a national secular autonomous mass movement of Muslim Women with over 50,000 members in 15 States. According to the petitioners, since their childhood, they were visiting the Haji Ali Dargah, the Dargah of Pir Haji Ali Shah Bukhari (R.A.), the patron saint and during their visits, were permitted to enter the sanctum sanctorum where the saint lied buried, through a separate entry earmarked only for women to enable them t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1943Bom463; (1943)45BOMLR940
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by Mr. Justice Chagla in chambers dismissing an application to set aside an order made by the Prothonotary and Senior Master transmitting a certified copy of an award dated July 30, 1938, to the District Court of Ajmer for execution.2. The facts giving rise to the application are these. On July 30, 1938, the award in question was made, and on August 6 notice was given to the parties of the filing of the award under Section 11 of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1899. On December 5, 1940, the award was filed in this Court. On May 14, 1942, an application was made to the Prothonotary & Senior Master to transfer the award for execution to the District Court of Ajmer, and such an order was made on June 25. On April 7, 1943, a summons was taken out for setting aside that order of the Prothonotary, and it is against the dismissal of that summons that this appeal is brought.3. The arbitration took place under the old Arbitration ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)(191)ELT589Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act. He avails of MOPVAT credit of duty paid on the scrap received by him as inputs. During the period under dispute the appellant availed of credit on the strength of 10 endorsed gate passes and 44 certificates issued in lieu of gate-passes. The gate passes referred to above were endorsed by Traders and the Certificates were issued by the Central Excise Officers, who verified the original duty paying documents. Both these documents are valid documents for the purpose of taking credit.2. It is alleged that the appellant availed credit on the strength of endorsed gate passes, which were so endorsed on the strength of, forged gate passes and availed of credit on the basis of certificates issued on the basis of fake/forged documents. During the investigation statements of the officials of the appellant company and that of the traders from whom inputs were received, were recorded....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(1)ALLMR378; 1999(1)BomCR269
ORDERP.S. Patankar, J.1. This is challenging the Award dated 14th June, 1996. The respondent No. 1 was granted the work of construction of a School Building at Malvani, Malad (West). The petitioners issued a letter dated 6th May, 1985 entrusting the said work to the respondent No. 1. This was because of the earlier grant of work to the respondent No. 1 for building a school of Gandhigram Scheme School at Juhu. The same rates were affected for the construction at Malwani. Respondent No. 1 sent a letter dated 8th May, 1985 giving proposal for the lumpsum payment for steel for the construction with an additional premium of 9.9%. The Additional Municipal Commissioner gave approval on 15-5-85 to the said proposal of the respondent No. 1. On 6th August, 1985, the Executive Engineer conveyed the said decision of the Additional Municipal Commissioner. The date of commencement was fixed at 11-7-85 and to be completed before September 1988. The contract was valued at Rs. 1,33,20,500/-. On 12th D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
MohitS. Shah, C.J. 1. The following questions have been referred for our opinion: (1) What is the scope and ambit of the power of revision under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999? (2) Whether a revision application under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 would be maintainable in respect of a procedural order passed under the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit arising out of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act ? 2. For giving answers to the above questions, we propose to proceed in the following manner:Para Nos.Page Nos.(i)Indicating brief facts leading to this reference3 to 64 to 5(ii)Setting out the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties7 to 96 to 15(iii)Statutory provisions1016 to 18(iv)Giving broad analysis of rival submissions on maintainability of revision.1118 to 20(v)Relevant consideration for correct perspective12 to 1920 to 26(vi)Brief exposition of the principle on maintainability of revision20 to 2426 to 31(vii)Analysis o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(2)BomCR293
..... down in sub-section (3) and accepting the one which he thought fair. the supreme court held that the words of subsection (3) were mandatory and compelled the arbitrator to accept only the smaller figure arrived at after assessment on the two modes of valuation. in v.k. verma v. radhey shyam, : air1964sc1317 the supreme court was concerned with the construction of the expression 'shall have regard to' the provisions of this act as used in the delhi rent control act, 1958. the supreme court took the view that these words merely meant that where the provisions of old act of 1952 and new act were ..... thereunder on publication shall have the same effect as if they were part of the act. it was then contended that the regulations being part and parcel of the act, would survive the act itself. the supreme court answered the contention in paragraph 16 by pointing out that if the words of section 31(4) are construed to mean that the regulations became part of the act to the extent that when the act is repealed, the regulations also stand repealed, a conflict at once arises between section 31(4) and the provisions of section 24 of the general clauses act. the supreme court observed,'however efficient the rule-making authority may .....
Tag this Judgment!