Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1977Bom99
Masodkar, J. 1. These 2661 cases have clogged the Court's corridors for considerable time, challenging the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No. 27 of 1961) as amended by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) and (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act No. 21 of 1975) Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Amendment Act, 1975 (Act No. 47 of 1975) and the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Act No. 2 of 1976).2. The petitioners raised almost Common questions and the petitions can be decided by an order indicating separate points urged in support of different petitioners' claims. It is assumed and not disputed that the petitioner in each petition is aggrieved by the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling On Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No. 27 of 1961) as amended and in issue.3. At the outset it must be stated that in Special Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR996
(1) The point for consideration concerns court-fees. This plaint was presented to the Prothonotary of this Court. the plaint has been made out on papers which bear court-fee stamps of the aggregate value of Rs. 2,360/-. These court-fee stamps bear the imprint thereon 'Delhi'. This plaint was originally filed in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, and after certain proceedings in Delhi the same was returned to the plaintiffs for being presented to the proper Court on the ground that that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Under those circumstances this plaint was thereafter presented in the office of the Prothonotary and the office raised a contention that the plaint could not be accepted and filed in this Court unless proper court-fee had been paid to the office which payment would be made to the office on behalf of the State of Bombay. The only question for determination, therefore , is whether, even on the assumption that the amount of the court-fe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1947)49BOMLR227
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, made on August 24, 1943. By its order the High Court directed that the convictions and sentences passed on the appellants by Mr. S. Chaudhury, acting as a special magistrate under the Special Criminal Courts Ordinance, 1942, be set aside, and that the appellants be retried in the district of Hooghly.2. The facts leading up to the appeal can be stated shortly. In January, 1943, the accused were tried on a charge of dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code by Mr. Chaudhury acting as such special magistrate as aforesaid. On January 19, 1943, they were acquitted on the charge under Section 395, but were convicted under Section 403 of the offence of misappropriation and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each. Subsequently, the High Court at Calcutta, of its own motion, called for the record of the case, and on August 24, 1943, a bench consisting of the Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 20.2.2016 passed by the respondent no. 2, the Hon'ble Minister, thereby disqualifying the petitioners under the provisions of Sections 55B and 42 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1965). 2. The petitioners, when the impugned order was passed, were or had been the part of the Municipal Council, Katol, in such capacities as petitioner no. 1 being the President; petitioner no. 2 being the Ex-President and the Councillor and petitioner nos. 3 to 10 being the councillors and petitioner no. 10 being a co-opted councillor. They were disqualified by respondent no.2 for the reason that they were found to have indulged in misconduct and disgraceful conduct. The alleged controversial conduct of the petitioners related to the allotment of some minor works to one contractor, Shri Bambal. 3. Some councillors...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(2)BomCR87
ORDERS.N. Variava, J.1. All these petitions can be disposed off by this common judgment. Facts are by and large common. On behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Zaiwalla and Mr. Chinoy have argued. All the other Advocates have adopted the arguments of these two Counsel.2. All these petitions challenge the vires of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mining Concessions (Abolition and Declaration as Mining Leases) Act, 1987 (hereinafter for the sake of convenience called the said Impugned Act). Facts briefly stated are as follows:3. The then Portuguese Government granted various concessions under Decrees dt. 20th September 1906. These were governed by the Portuguese Colonial Mining Laws. The then existing position is very succinctly set out by the Supreme Court in the case of Vinodkumar Shantilal Gosalia v. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal : [1982]1SCR392 . The relevant portion reads as follows:'3. During the Portuguese rule, matters relating to grant, transfer and vesting of mining rights in Goa, Daman and Diu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1945Bom88; (1944)46BOMLR877
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. The facts pertinent to this appeal lie within a comparatively narrow compass. The respondent is the landlord, and the appellant the tenant of certain premises whereon he conducts the business of a boarding and lodging hotel. The lease of the premises having expired on March 1, 1943, the appellant sought to hold over, but the respondent brought this action for possession. To that claim the appellant set up the Bombay Rent Restriction Order, 1942, which Order, as it then stood, only protected premises let for the purposes of residence. The action originally came before Mr. Justice Blagden on June 29, 1943, when he made an order for possession, on the ground that the premises were not let for the purposes of residence. Against that order the present appellant appealed, and that appeal came before the Chief Justice, Sir John Beaumont, and Mr. Justice Rajadhyaksha, on August 19, 1943. They reversed the judgment of the learned Judge in the Court below, holding that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(4)BomCR465; [1995]83CompCas1(Bom); (1995)ILLJ1099Bom
V.A. Mohta, J.1. These are five appeals under section 391(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'), against a common order dated March 3, 1994, made by the company court under section 391/394 of the Act sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation of the Tata Oil Mills Company Limited (TOMCO) - the transferor with the Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL) - the transferee. Company Petition No. 332 of 1993 is by TOMCO and Company Petition No. 333 of 1993 is by HLL - both for the similar relief of sanction. On these two petitions the impugned order was passed. Since these appeals are against a common judgment they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. Appeal No. 244 of 1994 is by the Federation of Tata Oil Mills and Allied Companies' Employees' Unions in Company Petition No. 332 of 1993, connected with Company Application No. 250 of 1993. Appeal No. 298 of 1994 is by Mr. Rabindra Hazari - a shareholder of TOMCO - in Company Petition No. 332 of 1993, connected with Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1995Bom194; 1995(3)BomCR656; [1995]84CompCas910(Bom)
1. The Appellants who are a public limited company and listed on the Stock Exchange, Bombay, have referred this Appeal against the order passed by the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the CL.B') in Company Petition Nos. 10 and 11/SC/CLB/VR/92, 1 to 92 of 1993, 94 to 103, 106 to 129, 132, 143 to 154, 156 to 161,167 to 173, 177 to 187, 190, 191, 195 and 196 of 1993 and 1 of 1994.2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present Appeal are as under:3. Unit Trust of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the UTI') the Respondents, as Part of its market operations, bought from the market 99, 075 shares of the Appellant-Company over a period of time and lodged the instruments of transfer with the Appellants for registration the details of which are set out in Annexure 'A' to the order passed by the CLB. The said transfer applications were considered by the Board of Directors of the Appellants in its various meetings and the Board decided to refuse registration of transfers on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1963Bom189; (1963)65BOMLR91; ILR1963Bom594; (1963)ILLJ400Bom
Abhyankar, J.1. The order in this application will also govern Special Civil Applications Nos. 381 and 382 of 1961.2. The petitioner in Special Civil ApplicationNo. 360 of 1961 is Messrs. Sawatram Ramprasad Mills, Company, and the contesting respondent is one of their workers, Baliram. In the other two petitions, Nos. 381 and 382 of 1961, the petitioner is Rai Saheb Rekhchand Malhotra Spinning and Weaving Mills at Hinganghat, and in each the contesting respondent is one of the workers in the Mill. In all the three cases an employee of the Mills, which are all textile Mills in Vidarbha region, filed an application 'before the presiding officer of the Labour Court, Bombay, at Nagpur. The claim in each of the application was for payment of lay-off compensation on the ground that the worker was illegally laid off by the employer and was entitled to compensation under Section 25A (sic 25C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Specific amounts have been claimed as lay-off compensation. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom83
Chagla, C.J.1. A short but interesting point is raised in this second appeal as to the law which is applicable to the parties with regard to adoption after the Jath State was merged in the Province of Bombay. The District Judge of Jath held that a widow of a deceased coparcener was not entitled to adopt without the consent of the other coparceners and in doing so he followed a very early decision of this Court reported in Ramji v. Ghamau 6 Bom. 498 and he also followed a decision of the Supreme Court of Jath. Now, the Notification issued by the Government of Bombay on 2nd March 1948, under the Extra-Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947, makes provision as to the jurisdiction of the High Court and what law it has to administer when cases which were pending before Jath Courts stand transferred to this Court. By Section 4 of that Notification any law relating to any of the matters enumerated in Lists II and III in Schedule 7 to the Government of India Act, 1935, or any notification, order, s...
Tag this Judgment!