Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(1)BomCR501
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In the above, the following questions have been>referred to us by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice:(1) Whether in the circumstances and seriousness of the problem, the danger posed and the menace caused by the stray dogs, resort can be had to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the relevant provisions of the Bombay Municipalities Act, Maharashtra Municipalities Act and the Goa Municipalities Act and other enactments?(2) Whether inspite of the aforesaid provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and other Acts referred to above, the killing of the stray dogs has to be totally prohibited?2. Before answering the aforesaid two questions a little background would be necessary to understand the same. A Division Bench of this Court by a Judgment and Order dated 5th October, 1998 had laid down various guidelines to deal with the problem of stray dogs. The abo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
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
Reported in : 2009(1)BomCR462; 2008(4)MhLj824
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. By this writ petition, petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad on 5-11-2004 (Exh.Y). By the impugned judgment, learned Members of MAT were pleased to dismiss Original Application Nos. 937/2004; 946/2004 and 964/2004. Present petitioner was a petitioner in Original Application No. 937/2004. By seeking quashment of the impugned judgment, petitioner also seeks directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to provide relaxation of upper age limit for in-service candidates, during the process of filling up the posts, which were likely to be advertised on 24-10-2007 (writ petition is filed on 20-10-2007) i.e. Maharashtra Engineering Services Examination 2007 (refer schedule of examinations published by MPSC on 16-7-2007 - Exhibit X).In fact, petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 7356/2004 challenging this very judgment, by which prayer for relaxation of upper age limit for in-service candidates was turned do...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1972MhLJ987; [1972]29STC74(Bom)
Kotval, C.J. 1. This reference arises out of the references made by the Sales Tax Tribunal to this court in four cases. Though several questions were raised before the Sales Tax Tribunal and six of them have been referred for decision before the Division Bench in the sales tax references made to this court, the present reference by the Division Bench to the Full Bench is only upon one question, and that question is question No. (2) involved in all the references before the Division Bench. That question is as follows : 'Was the Tribunal right in holding that Explanation (II) to section 2(g), as was originally embodied in the Sales Tax Act, 1947, got restored on the statute-book because of the unconstitutionality of the substituted explanation enacted in the Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1949 ?' 2. Though one common question has been referred in all the references, each reference involves a different period of assessment as shown below : Reference No. Period involved. 17 of 1964. 1-1-1947 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
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
Reported in : (1944)46BOMLR54
J.C. Shah, J.1. The question that arises in this case is, whether Ordinance XIX of 1943 is a valid Ordinance. It was promulgated on June 5, 1943, to repeal Ordinance II of 1942, which established Special Criminal Courts in India for trial of certain classes of offences. Ordinance II of 1942 was held to be intra vires by the Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Shreekant Pandurang Ketkar : (1943)45BOMLR323 , though the Calcutta High Court arrived at an opposite conclusion in Banoari Lal v. Emperor : AIR1943Cal285 as regards Sections 5, 10, 14 and 16. Eventually the Federal Court of India held in Emperor v. Banoari Lal that Sections 5, 10 and 16 of the Ordinance were ultra vires. This decision was given on June 4, 1943. The Governor General deliberated overnight and promulgated Ordinance XIX of 1943 the next day. The new Ordinance accepted the decision of the Federal Court in so far as it repealed Ordinance II of 1942. It also proceeded to terminate pending proceedings; but it went further to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1951Bom190; (1950)52BOMLR660; ILR1950Bom640
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the Additional District Judge and First Class Subordinate Judge, Jamkhandi, dismissing the decree-holders' darkhast with costs.2. It appears that one Chunilal Kasturchand Marwadi and another obtained a decree against Dundappa Damappa Navalgi and others in Suit No. 249/1927 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Belgaum. Dundappa was a partner in a partnership firm going by the name of Bashetappa Muttur and Ohanbassappa Lakshethi & Co. which had business dealings with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs brought the suit to recover arrears due to them and impleaded, all the partners of the firm, including Dundappa who was defendant 5. Defendants 1 to 4 resided within the local limits of the special jurisdiction of the Belgaum Court. The other defendants, including defendant 5, did not reside within that jurisdiction, and an application was made under Section 20(b), Civil P. C., to obtain leave of the Court to proceed a...
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
Reported in : AIR1957Bom142; (1957)59BOMLR261; ILR1957Bom412; (1957)IILLJ245Bom
Shah, J.1. The petitioner is an employee of M/s. Forbes Forbos Campbell and Co. Ltd., Bombay, whom we will hereafter refer to as the Company. The petitioner is the Joint Secretary of the 'Forbes, Forbes Campbell and Co. Ltd., and Allied Employees' Union' which is a Trade Union registered under the Indian, Trade Unions Act, 1926. The Industrial Tribunal of Bombay, in reference No. 89 of 1955 made an award which concerned the Union. 'Against the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, an appeal was preferred to the Labour Appellate Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. It is claimed that the appeal involved a question relating to a dispute about bonus in which 200 employees of the Company were interested, After the appeal was ready for hearing a notice was sent on 27th April 1936 by the Office of the Labour Appellate Tribunal to the Union informing them that the appeal was ready for hearing and will be set down for hearing at short notice. Another notice d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom11; (1960)62BOMLR735; ILR1961Bom101
Naik, J. 1. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff originally against Miraj State for the following reliefs : 1. A full and detailed account be taken of defendant's management of the Saranjam Estate from 1915 to the data of suit in respect of income from all items of income such as court fee, registration, stamps, fines, Abkavi, excise, opium and other items received or deemed to have been received by the State in its capacity as the Manager of the Estate. 2. A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the income from the date of suit from such items as Abkari, excise opium and such other items as have no relation to the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction rights over the villages. The plaintiff's case may be outlined as follows : The plaintiff's ancestor, Moro Ballal Patwardhan, was a member of the Branch of Govind Had Patwardhan, who founded tile Miraj Saranjam. The Peshwas granted a 'Tainat' or a Saranjam in favour of Govind Hari in 1764 for a su...
Tag this Judgment!