Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(1)ALLMR146; 2000(1)BomCR781; 2000(2)MhLj198
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These three writ petitions involve a common question of law and arise out of similar facts and it would, therefore, be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.2. For the sake of convenience, we shall narrate the facts of Writ Petition No. 782 of 1998 and indicate the factual differences, if any, in other writ petitions.3. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 782 of 1998 were commissioned in Indian Navy as Sub-Lieutenants on various dates as indicated in Exhibit 'A' to the writ petition. The petitioners were also promoted to the rank of Lieutenant in the Engineering Branch on different dates as indicated in the said Exhibit 'A'.4. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1814 of 1998 were also commissioned in Indian Navy as Sub-Lieutenants on different dates and attained the rank of Lieutenant as indicated in Exhibit 'A' to the writ petition. The petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 783 of 1998, was commissioned in Indian Navy as Sub-Lieutenant on 1-1-1985....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1981)83BOMLR75; 1981MhLJ93
Madon, J.1. The circumstances which led to this Special Bench being constituted are that on September 10, 1980 a Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Madon and Shah JJ., while hearing an Appeal, namely, Appeal No. 308 of 1979 Filmistan Private Limited v, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, against the judgment and order of Pendse J., sitting singly on the Original Side, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, entertained a doubt as to the competency of the said Appeal. Accordingly, they directed the papers in the said Appeal to be placed before the Chief Justice for him to constitute a larger Bench, if he so thought fit, for the determination of the question whether the said Appeal was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this High Court. Six days later, that is, on September 16, 1980, while another Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Madon and Kania JJ., were taking admissions in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1951Bom440; (1951)53BOMLR621; ILR1952Bom378
Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed to challenge certain orders passed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The facts briefly stated leading up to the petition are that the second petitioner, which is a limited company, was incorporated on 14th July 1933, as a private limited company with a share capital divided into 44,149 shares. The number of share-holders was 35 and the first petitioner is a share holder of this limited company with a holding of 2,715 shares. On 7-10-1949 two notifications were issued by the Deputy Custodian of Bombay, one under Section 4 (2) of Bombay Act XXIV [24] of 1949 vesting the property of the second petitioner company in the Custodian, and the second notification under Section 6(1) of 6he same Act dealing with the possession and control of that property. On 14th October 1949, two notifications were issued by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property of Thana, one again under Section 4 (2) and the other under Section 6 (1) also relatin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1928Bom5; (1927)29BOMLR1551
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is one of those cases which, though petty in amount, involve legal points of importance and some difficulty. The subject-matter of the dispute is a humble cask of iron nails. The plaintiff who is a merchant at Honawar had a dalal at Bombay. The latter sent this case of nails together with other cases and some other goods by the 88: Indravati of the defendant company for being delivered to the plaintiff at Honawar harbour. The company's bill of lading was sent by the plaintiff's dalal to the plaintiff. The plaintiff presented it to the company at Honawar, and got delivery of all the goods except the suit cask of nails. The plaintiff then called on the company to deliver the suit cask. The answer was; 'it was lost over-board in unloading through an accident due to the ship rolling, and we are not liable under the terms of our contract contained in the bill of lading.'2. The plaintiff nevertheless brought his suit. The trial Court held that the loss was d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom260; (1953)55BOMLR170; ILR1953Bom680
Gajendragadkar, J.(1) The snort point which arises in this civil revision application is Whether the petitioners are entitled to have their debts adjusted in respect of the opponent. An application was made by the petitioners' father on 15-10-1945, for the adjustment of his debts due from him to three creditors. Amongst them opponent I was the first creditor. This application was made to the Board, and at the time when it was made, it would have been governed by the provisions of Bombay Act 28 of 1939. However, the application was not disposed of until 12-4-1950. Meanwhile, the present Act 28 of 1947 had come into operation on 27-5-1947. Before the learned trial Judge, two contentions were raised by the creditor against the petitioners' claim for adjustment it was urged that the application was incompetent under Section 45, Sub-section (2), of the earlier Act of 1939. It was also contended that the application was barred under the provisions of Section 25, Sub-section (1), of the new A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)87BOMLR246; 1986MhLJ441
K. Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. A Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated March 21. 1984 allowed First Appeal No. 3 of 1977 preferred by the Union of India and set aside the award dated November 29, 1976 made in respect of a plot of land initially requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1962 and derequisitioned on June 28, 1973 after The Requisitioning And Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short 'Requisition Act') came into force 'so far as it pertained to the additional initial compensation awarded.'2. While several grounds were raised for reviewing that judgment, we do not think any of them merits consideration except the ground that no appeal lay to the High Court against the award of an arbitrator made in a requisition made under the Defence of India Act. The Defence of India Act does not provide for an appeal against an award made thereunder. But this contention is raised having regard to the fact that while the Defence of India Act had expired on January ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(5)BomCR746
Deshmukh D.K., J.1. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the first petitioner is a company incorporated pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and now governed under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The second petitioner is a shareholder of the petitioner No. 1 company.2. The first petitioner is the owner of lands situated at Village Panchpakhadai, at Thane and Village Majiwade at Thane. On the commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ULC Act'), pursuant to the first petitioner's return dated 14th August, 1976 under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, the Competent Authority passed an order dated 28th September, 1984 under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act declaring a large area as surplus vacant land. The first petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Additional Collector, Thane, who by his order dated 29th April, 1985 stayed the operation of the order dated 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1979)81BOMLR234
Jahagirdar, J.1. This is a tenant's petition against the decree passed by the learned Fourth Extra Assistant Judge of Poona whereby the plaintiff's suit for possession of the premises tenanted by the petitioner was decreed. The petitioner and the respondent will hereinafter be called 'the defendant' and 'the plaintiff' respectively. This petition raises an interesting question of law relating to the consequences of the withdrawal by the notification of the provisions under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Bombay Rent Act') from certain areas to which the said provisions had been made applicable earlier.2. Admittedly the defendant was in possession of a part of the house No. 589, hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises', situated at Saswad in Purandar Taluka of Poona District. The defendant entered in the suit premises as a tenant in January 1963 and continued to occupy the same as a tenant. It is said that the initial rent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR609; 1965MhLJ426
Patel, J.1. Last week these letters patent appeals were before us but as we felt some doubt whether any such appeal could lie we directed that these matters be placed before us for hearing on the question, whether an appeal lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the decision of a Single Judge given in a special civil application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this High Court which is in similar words as that of Calcutta and Madras High Courts, is as follows, so far as is relevant to the present case:-And we further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature & Bombay from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and not being a sentence or order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1967)69BOMLR326; 1967MhLJ694
Tarkunde, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts, proceeded.] A preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition was taken be-for me by Mr. Chagla on behalf of respondents Nos. 6 to 8. Respondent No. 8 is the Fourth Baronet; respondent No. 6 is his minor son; and respondent No. 7 is his mother, being the second wife of the Third Baronet. Mr. Chagla urged that this petition is not maintainable because the Repealing Act, under which the petition is filed, is itself ultra vires the Bombay State Legislature. The Act is ultra vires, according to Mr. Chagla, because it violates Articles 14 and 31 of the Constitution and also because it was beyond the legislative competence of the Bombay State Legislature to pass such an Act. Mr. Chagla expressly told me that respondents Nos. 6 to 8 do not challenge the Act on the ground that it violates Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, the reason being that respondents Nos. 6 to 8 are not citizens of India. I may add that, if respondent...
Tag this Judgment!