Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Feb-12-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition at the instance of the tenant takes exception to the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court under provisions of Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short the said Act) as upheld by the first appellate Court. The premises in question is a ground floor shop that is used for running business by the petitioner. According to the petitioner said premises were let out on monthly rent of Rs. 500/- per month. According to the petitioner said amount of rent was being regularly paid till the year 2000 after which the respondent-landlord stopped accepting the same. Subsequently money orders were sent by the petitioner for the months of March, April and May 2000. On 29.04.2008 notice came to be issued by the landlord calling upon the tenant to pay arrears of rent for the period from 01.07.2000 to 30.04.2008. The arrears were demanded at the rate of Rs. 5000/- ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-08-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Unsuccessful landlord before the appellate court, who reversed the decree in favour of the landlord for possession is before this court. 2. A suit was filed in the court of 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhule. The said suit was registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 458 of 1985. The said suit was contested by the present respondent no.1 and the predecessor-in-title of respondent nos. 2 to 5. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial court and the defendants in the suit were directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises and they were also directed to pay Rs.152.50 Ps. as arrears of rent, Rs.35/- towards damages and Rs.65/- by way of notice charges by judgment and decree dated 16.11.1991. 3. Appeal was carried. The said appeal was registered as Regular Civil Appeal No.2 of 1992 and was on the file of Extra Joint District Judge, Dhule. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment, dated 2.2.2000 allowed the appeal and thereby reversed the j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-08-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Unsuccessful landlord before the appellate court, who reversed the decree in favour of the landlord for possession is before this court. 2. A suit was filed in the court of 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhule. The said suit was registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 458 of 1985. The said suit was contested by the present respondent no.1 and the predecessor-in-title of respondent nos. 2 to 5. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial court and the defendants in the suit were directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises and they were also directed to pay Rs.152.50 Ps. as arrears of rent, Rs.35/- towards damages and Rs.65/- by way of notice charges by judgment and decree dated 16.11.1991. 3. Appeal was carried. The said appeal was registered as Regular Civil Appeal No.2 of 1992 and was on the file of Extra Joint District Judge, Dhule. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment, dated 2.2.2000 allowed the appeal and thereby reversed the j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Nov-30-2015
1. The revision is filed against judgment and order of Waqf Suit No. 52/2007, which was pending before the Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad. The suit was filed by present petitioners for relief of declaration and injunction. The order dated 18.4.2007 made by the Chief Officer of the Waqf Board in case No. 17/2005 was challenged and declaration was claimed that the order is illegal, null and void. Relief of injunction was claimed against the Chief Officer of the Waqf Board to prevent him from taking possession of immovable property on the basis of the order dated 18.4.2007. The Tribunal has dismissed the suit. Both the sides are heard. 2. There is dispute between the petitioners and respondents about the properties bearing C.T.S. Nos. 1199, 1205, 1201 and 1202 situated at Narayangaon, Tahsil Junnar, District Pune. Respondent Hajimiya s/o. Abdul Kadar Qureshi is a Namazi and he is also involved in the management of Shahi Jumma Masjid of Narayangaon. It is his contention that the aforesaid prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-05-2015
1. This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, impugns the order dated 26 March 2014 passed by the Respondent No.3-Vice President and Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) whereby the Respondent No.1 was certified as the occupant of Shop No.5, Building No.215-22A, Kalachawky Road, D.L. Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai - 400 012 (hereinafter referred to as 'Shop No.5') and it was directed that Respondent No.1 be given possession of Shop No.5 after redevelopment. Consequently, the name of the Petitioners as occupants of Shop No.5 was deleted from the list of occupants. 2. One Mahadeo Shankar Thorave (hereinafter referred to as 'Mahadeo') was the tenant of Shop No.5. He died on or about 26 February 1990. The tenancy in respect of Shop No.5 was transferred to the name of the Petitioners Nos.1 and 2, being the wife and son respectively of Mahadeo. Respondent No.1 is wife of the other son of Mahadeo. In or about 2001-02, the tenants of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-29-2015
1. This group of Company Appeals arises from the order passed by the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, on 28 March 2013, in Company Petition No.62 of 2009 filed by M/s. Nafan B.V. The Company Law Board, by the impugned order, has directed Nafan B.V. and Lasaffre Et Cie, to transfer 80722 shares i.e. 51% of shareholding to the respondents in that petition, referred to as Muthu Group. 2. Company Appeal No.21 of 2015 (Company Appeal (L) No. 30 of 2013) is filed by M/s.Nafan B.V.; Company Appeal No.22 of 2015 (Company Appeal (L) No. 33 of 2013) is filed by M/s. Sharp and Tannan, Chartered Accountants; Company Appeal No.23 of 2015 (Company Appeal (L) No. 34 of 2013) is filed by Mr.Arunachalam Muthu and Ors.; Company Appeal No.24 of 2015 (Company Appeal (L) No. 35 of 2013) is filed by M/s. Lesaffre Et CIE. Company Application No.11 of 2015 (Company Application (L) No. 37 of 2013) is taken out in Company Appeal No.21 of 2015 and Company Application No.12 of 2015 (Company Application (L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-14-2015
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In all these petitions, common questions of fact and law are raised and, therefore, they can be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. 3. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involve a challenge to the orders of Medical Council of India (`MCI') and Maharashtra Medical Council ('MMC') against Petitioners/Doctors for breach of professional code of ethics. 4. We would take the facts in two petitions so that the principal arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the Respondents can be appreciated. Facts i n Writ Petition No.562 of 2014 (O.S.) : 5. In Writ Petition No.562 of 2014, the Petitioner-Dr. Shashikant Patel is a citizen of India. He is registered as a medical practitioner with Respondent no.2 MMC bearing registration no.47177. The Petitioner was appointed as a Professor of Anatomy by the medical college namely Melmaruvathur Adiparasakthi Insti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-11-2015
1. Heard Mr. Y. H. Muchhala, learned senior counsel for the applicants and Mr. Sagheer A. Khan, learned counsel for respondent no.1 at length. Mr. Muchhala orally applies for leave to delete respondent no.2, Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs on the ground that no relief is claimed against it in the present application and is a formal party. On the motion made by Mr. Muchhala, leave to delete respondent no.2 is granted. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith. Tapadia RR/B. 2. Rule. Mr. Khan waives service for respondent no.1. At the request and by consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and Application is taken up for final hearing. 3. By this Application under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995, original defendants no. 1 to 7 have challenged the Judgment and order dated 29.6.2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Maharashtra State Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad, (for short, 'Tribunal'), below Exhibits 19 and 30 in waqf Suit No.144 of 2014. By that order, the Tribu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-20-2015
1. Company Petition No.114 of 2012 is filed by the Petitioner Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. for winding up of Respondent No. 1-Etisalat DB Telecom Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner submitted in the Petition that it is just and equitable to wind up the Respondent No.1 Company inter alia on the following grounds: (i) Loss of substratum of the Respondent No.1 Company on account of the quashing of the 2G licenses by the Honble Supreme Court; (ii) Dysfunctional Board of Directors owing to the withdrawal of Directors nominated by Respondent No.2 Majestic Infracon Pvt. Ltd.; (iii) The Respondent No.1 Company is insolvent as its liabilities far exceed its assets and it cannot pay its dues as and when they arise. 2. The Company Petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. Briefly set out here-in-below, are the facts which have led to the filing of the above Company Petition and the orders passed by this Court thereon after the filing of the Petition. 3.1 The PetitionerEtisalat Mauritius Ltd. (EML) is a Company ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-11-2015
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that section 7(15)(d) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short the MRC Act?) is inconsistent with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short the HS Act) as amended from time to time. The argument is that to the extent section 7(15)(d) of the MRC Act provides protection to the family member, who was residing with the deceased tenant, at the time of his death, even though such family member is not a heir of the deceased tenant, deprives the heir of the deceased tenant of his right and status under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 2. This argument is premised on the fact that the rule of intestate succession set out by the HS Act has been given an overriding effect. Section 4 of the HS Act is giving such overriding effect. Section 4 of the HS Act is given such overriding effect over any other law in force immediately before the commencement of the HS...
Tag this Judgment!