Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-17-2004
Reported in : 2005(2)ALLMR299; 2005(5)BomCR832
Britto N.A., J.1. These are plaintiffs second appeals.2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the suits.3. The plaintiff is the owner of a property known as 'Maddem' having land registration No. 29031, Matriz No. 2290 surveyed under No. 114/5 with a house in it, situated in Umtawaddo of Calangute village.4. The plaintiff by virtue of an agreement dated 24-9-1976 let out to defendant No. 1 the said house as per the plan attached with compound at the back of the house and a strip of land which went up to the seashore; on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 775/-. The lease was for a period of 22 years from 1-4-1976, for the purpose of running a guest house. Considering the nature of the business, it was agreed between the parties that rent would be Rs. 425/- per month for the first year and with a proportionate increase of Rs. 50/- every subsequent year. Clause 9 of the said deed, which is most relevant, reads as follows :-'The lessee sha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-14-2004
Reported in : (2005)107BOMLR843; 2005(1)MhLj547
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 24-3-2004 passed by the respondent-BMC and the demand for payment made pursuant to the bills - Exhibits R. S-1 to S-8 annexed to the petition being contrary to the provisions of law, illegal, and in excess of the powers conferred upon the authority under the provisions of law comprised under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, hereinafter called as 'the said Act.'3. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are the owners of the property having therein a building by name 'Dalamal Tower', situated in Plot No. 211, Backbay Reclamation, Municipal 'A' Ward No. 1315 (127), Nariman Point, Mumbai. The building comprises of a basement, ground plus fifteen upper floors having two enclosed garages in the basement and 274 units of which 199 are self-occupied by the members of the petitioner-society wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-06-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)ALLMR128; 2005(1)BomCR839; 2005(1)MhLj1097
D.G. Karnik, J.1. The question of law that arise for determination in this Civil Revision Application is:(i) Whether during the pendency of a suit filed by a landlord for eviction of a tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the Bombay Rent Act) the landlord can file a second suit for eviction under the general law (Transfer of Property Act, 1882) against a tenant who has ceased to have protection of a Rent Act by reason of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ?The brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid questions are stated below:2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit) against the applicant (hereinafter also referred to as the tenant) for eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground that he required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for his own use and occupation and that the tenant was a defaulter in payme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-16-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)MhLj705
P.S. Brahme, J.1. Hear Shri R. R. Mantri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri P. M. Shaha, learned senior counsel holding for Shri S. V. Gangapurwala and Shri M. N. Nawandar, learned counsel for the respondent.2. Perused the Judgments of both the Courts below and also the material produced by the parties.3. This revision application arises out of the proceedings initiated by the respondent/landlord before Rent Controller, Aurangabad for seeking possession of shop premises admittedly let out to petitioners as tenant under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to for brevity's sake as 'Hyderabad Rent Act').4. The respondent had filed an application which was registered as case No. 98/MAG/ROCR/56 on 15th May, 1998 against the petitioner/tenant under the Hyderabad Rent Act for the possession of shop premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and also for requirement of the premises reasonably and bona fide by the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-29-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)ALLMR183; 2005(1)BomCR386; 2004(3)MhLj1018
B.R. Gavai, J.1. The petitioner by way of present petition challenges the order passed by the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 24-10-1991 in Revenue Appeal No. 67/B-109/91 thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the order passed by the Tahsildar, Kelapur vide which the land admeasuring 4 acres and 29 gunthas was directed to be restored to the respondent No. 2 herein.2. The short background giving rise to the present petition is as under :--That the respondent No. 2 herein made an application dated 21-1-1988 to respondent No. 3 Tahsildar claiming therein that the petitioner was in possession of survey No. 35/A admeasuring 4 acres and 29 gunthas owned by the father of the respondent No. 2. The said application was made under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The said application was replied by the petitioner on the ground that since 1964 the father of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-31-2004
1. The appellant has been penalised under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962, on the grounds of being involved in the acts of abetment in a case involving importation of man made fabrics against advance licences. In the adjudication proceedings it was held that the importers M/s Anand Corporation had violated the non-transferability clause of the advance licence, in the absence of any permission from the licensing authority on record as required under para 383(2) of the Hand Book of the Imports/Exports procedures 83-84.2. In the 2 adjudication orders passed against the importers M/s Anand Corporation appropriate penalties were imposed, and the imported goods were also subjected to absolute confiscation. In the instant appeal there is no challenge to the said findings. However, the penalties imposed on the appellants in the said orders were challenged through two separate appeals before Cegat. Both there appeals were allowed and the matter rounded to Commissioner for deciding the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-27-2004
Reported in : (2004)(117)LC307Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Sunrise Structural and Engg. Ltd. E/3284/02 (herein after referred to as Sunrise) M/s. KEC International Ltd. E/3185/02 (herein after referred to as KEC) M/s. Ramson Alloys (P) Ltd. E/3269/02 (herein after referred to as RAP) Shri Sanjay Agrawal E/3188/02 (Director of M/s. Sanvijay Re-rolling & Engg. Works Ltd) Shri Puranlal Agrawal E/3189/02 (Managing Director of M/s. Sanvijay Re-rolling & Engg. Works Ltd.) Shri K. Ramkumar E/3190/02 (Vice President of M/s. KEC Ltd.) Shri Tushar Deshpande E/3191/02 (Manager of M/s. KEC Ltd.) M/s. Maharashtra Steel Rolling Mills E/3188/02 (herein after referred to as M/s. MSRM) Shri Janki Shah E/3183/02 (Director of M/s. Maharashtra Steel Rolling Mills) 2. Pursuant to a information that M/s. KEC Ltd. and M/s. Sunrise Ltd. were availing 'unlawful' (SIC) deemed export benefits, and had indulged in availment/passing on of irregular MODVAT CREDIT were visited by the officers and enquiries launched which resulted in the notice. The impugned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-13-2004
Reported in : (2004)106BOMLR868
Dalveer Bhandari, C.J.1. This is a classic case of violation of human rights, fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('the Act', for short).2. The brief facts of this case are recapitulated as under : Petitioner No. 1, Salim Ikramuddin Ansari, aged about 15 years at the time of his arrest, has moved this petition with a prayer to declare his incarceration in Mumbai Central Prison unlawful and in violation of the Act.3. The first petitioner has also prayed that the second respondent be directed to produce him before the Juvenile Justice Board. The further prayer is to shift him from Mumbai Central Prison to the observation home at Urnerkhadi.4. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 has remained in unlawful custody of the Mumbai Central Prison from 16th November, 2001 to 11th February, 2003 and for that, he be awarded compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-.5. Petitioner No. 1 has also prayed that he be awarded ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-09-2004
Reported in : 2004(5)BomCR335; 2004(3)MhLj869
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Perused the records.2. The petitioners challenge the orders dated 4-3-1997 and 29-3-1997 in respect of fixation of the rateable value of the petitioner-society's property along with the warrants of attachment dated 11-8-1999 and 29-12-2000 to be bad in-law. The contention of the petitioners is that consequent to the said orders relating to the rateable value, the respondent-corporation has passed the orders in contravention of the decision of the Apex Court in The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Polychem Limited, reported in : [1974]3SCR687 , and there has been virtually double taxation in contravention of the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, hereinafter referred to as the 'the said Act' and the criteria adopted for fixation of the rateable value is also against the settled procedure in that regard and in contravention of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-13-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)ALLMR484; 2005(1)BomCR105
Daga V.C., J.1. This appeal at the instance of Shri Cutchi Visa Oswal Derawasi Jain Pathshala ('Pathshala Trust' for short) is directed against the order dated 17th June, 2004 passed by the City Civil Court at Bombay while dismissing Notice of Motion No. 809 of 2004 moved in S,C. Suit No. 552 of 2004, whereby prayer for temporary injunction to restrain defendant No. I/respondent No. 1 herein : Shri Cutchi Visha Oswal Derawasi Jain Mahajan ('Mahajan Trust' for short) and their trustees from interfering with the management, administration and appointment of trustees came to be rejected.The Factual Matrix:2. The factual matrix disclosed by the appellant reveals that the appellant/ original plaintiff-Pathshala Trust is an Education Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ('Trust Act' for short) at No. E-539 running two schools. Respondent No. 1/original defendant No. 1-Mahajan Trust is also a public Trust duly registered under the Trust Act engaged in religious activities....
Tag this Judgment!