Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-06-1996
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
Decided on : Oct-17-1996
Reported in : 1997(3)ALLMR44; 1997(2)BomCR620
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. These two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment, as they arise out of the judgment and decree, passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 378/81 dated 23rd December, 1983. To understand the facts of the present case, I would refer to the facts as are given in Writ Petition No. 307/91, since the facts being common.2. Writ Petition No. 307/91, is filed by one Ramesh Sundar, who happened to be the respondent in another petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 3262/89. The present respondents in Writ Petition No. 307/91 are the landlords of the premises in question, who have filed Writ Petition No. 3262/89.3. Smt. Sugarbai Mohd. Sadiq with her son, Mohd. Ramjan, who are respondents 1 and 2 respectively (in W.P. No. 307/91) are the landlords who filed Civil Suit for recovery of possession of the shop premises, admeasuring 15 x 10 ft. out of the ground floor area of the house i.e. City Survey Nos. 27 and 27-A, having Munici...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-08-1996
Reported in : 1997(4)BomCR92
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. This is a revision application by an unsuccessful tenants, who have all along been contending that they were not liable to be evicted from the premises in question for various reasons. To understand the matter, it is necessary to mention few facts. The present petitioners happened to be tenants, who are the legal representatives of original tenant-Madhavlal and the present respondents happened to be the landlords, who also have been substituted in place of the original landlord. The suit property is Municipal House No. 118, situated at Mission Hospital, Sadarbazar, Jalna, in which the original respondent-Madhavlal happened to be the tenant. Since the landlords were in need of accommodation, as also they had noticed that the petitioner was a defaulter and also had created sub-tenancy, a necessary notice, dated 8.11.1978 was issued to the petitioner, which was duly replied by reply dated 8.12.1979 by the petitioners-tenants. Since the notice was not complied with, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-12-1996
Reported in : 1996(5)BomCR140; (1997)IIILLJ1153Bom
T.K. Chandra Shekhara Das, J. 1. The petitioner challenges in this writ petition the order of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 751 of 1982 dated July 27, 1995. By this order the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, has allowed the complaint filed by the first respondent under Item 9 of Schedule IV of The MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, holding that the petitioner has committed unfair labour practice by non-implementation of the settlement dated January 27, 1971 and also by refusal to negotiate with the first respondent. The Industrial Court based on facts pleaded before it framed the following four issues. '1. Does the complainant prove that respondent has committed unfair labour practice under Item No. 9 of Schedule IV by committing failure to implement settlement dated January 27, 1971 and the agreement arrived at under the correspondence entered into with the complainant in 1957 2. Whether the case is barred by limitation 3. Whether the complaint is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-05-1996
Reported in : 1997(3)ALLMR620; 1997(4)BomCR10
A.P. Shah, J.1. Whether naval officers who have attained the rank of lieutenant in the executive branch of the Indian Navy are entitled to a certificate of service as the master of a foreign going ship without examination under section 80(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (Act for short) after repeal of the said section on 14th August, 1986, is the short but interesting question which falls for my consideration in this group of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The facts are simple and very shortly stated. The petitioners are naval officers serving in the executive branch of the Indian Navy. The petitioners have attained the rank of lieutenant in the executive branch of the Indian Navy long prior to repeal of section 80(1), which provided for grant of a certificate of service as the master of a foreign going ship without appearing for the examination if the concerned officer has attained the rank of lieutenant in the executive branch of the Indian Navy. It may...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-26-1996
Reported in : 1997(3)BomCR23
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. The only question that needs consideration in the present petition is as to whether the respondent-tenant could be said to be ready and willing to pay the standard rent and further as to whether could he be branded as a defaulter liable to be evicted from the premises in question and whether the learned District Judge, Jalgaon committed an error in reaching to the conclusion that the respondent-tenant had substantially complied with the provisions of section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act' for the purposes of brevity).2. The facts of the case in nutshell are, one Ramnarayan Govindram Sarswat happened to be the tenant of the petitioner-landlord Yashodabai and Prabhawati. Since Yashodabai died during the pendency of the petition, her legal representatives namely, Chandrakant and others, are brought on record. The original tenant Ramnarayan Govindram Sarswat, also has expired...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-07-1996
Reported in : 1996(5)BomCR478
A.P. Shah, J.1. This appeal by the State of Maharashtra is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Judge has set aside the order of cancellation of Form BRL licence issued to the respondent and further directed restoration of the said licence to the respondent. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing beer and is having its brewery at MIDC, Satara. The respondent was granted licence in Form BRL under Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Manufacturers of Beer and Wine Rules, 1966 ('Rules' for short) for the manufacture of beer. The said rules have been framed by the State Government under section 143(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 ('Act' for short). Originally the licence came to be granted to the respondent in or about 1972 and the same was renewed from time to time every five years. The last of such renewal was made on 1st April, 1982 and the said licence was valid upto ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-26-1996
Reported in : 1997(2)BomCR73; 1996(2)GLT46
Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Rule by consent to be heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner who is a Sarpanch of village Panchayat of Avedem-Cotombi and Chaifi is challenging in this writ petition, an order passed by the Goa State Election Commission, Panaji, dated 30th April, 1996, which is exhibited as Exhibit 'G' in this writ petition. The State Election Commissioner, third respondent herein, by order impugned, dismissed a petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed his petition as Case No. 2 before the Goa State Election Commission seeking a declaration that the first respondent herein, namely Shri Kushali S. Kalekar, stood disqualified for non-payment of dues to the Panchayat. It is necessary to note a few more facts to complete the narration of facts.It is borne out from the records that the aforesaid petition was filed by the petitioner before the Goa State Election Commission on the eve of a resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' being moved against him by the first respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-03-1996
Reported in : 1997(3)ALLMR160; 1998(1)BomCR497
B.U. Wahane, J.1. A bunch of 17 appeals, conveniently, with the consent of the learned Counsel of the parties, is disposed of by the common judgment, as the consignments of betel leaves (Mitha Pan) were despatched on 21-4-89 at Hawrah, the same were received at it's destination i.e. at Nagpur on 25-4-89 and thereby the facts and the legal issues involved are one and the same except the claim differs.2. The claims claimed by the appellants, allowed and disallowed in each case by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, are detailed as under:Details are omitted.Details are omitted.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------S.N. First Claim Name of AmountAppeal Application the ----I------------------------------------------No. No. & its appellant/ Claimed Awarded Disalloweddate of applicantdecision1 2 3 4 5 6 7------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. 243/ 16/OAI/RCT/ M/s. Potey 1467.00 D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-22-1996
Reported in : AIR1996Bom386
1. In the suit to recover the sum of Rs. 1,86,97,277.00 with interest on the principal sum of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- and the costs, the present Summons for Judgment has been taken out on behalf of the Plaintiffs.2. The facts leading to institution of this suit by the Plaintiff Society amply demonstrate the manner and mode in which the bank, supposed to be a repository of faith and trust and custodian of money deposited with it even by ordinary citizens, has indulged in fraud and malpractices with intend to mis-appropriate hard earned money of Central Railway Employees deposited through Plaintiffs' Society on 'Short Term Deposit' basis. The facts of the case also demonstrate the pre-planned and pre-determined manner in which the bank Officials siphoned off the money remitted by the Plaintiffs' Society by 'Crossed-cheques' drawn in favour of the Defendants' Bank for investment as 'Short Term Deposit'.3. The plaintiffs are a Society registered under The Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 and The...
Tag this Judgment!