Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard. 2. Admit. 2 A.O. no.59 of 2015 3. Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. 4. This is an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of Civil Procedure Code ( C.P.C. for short) assailing the judgment and decree dated 11/09/2015 passed by the District Judge-II, Margao whereby the learned Appellate Court had remanded the matter to the trial Court with the direction to refer the issue of mundkarship to the Mamlatdar for adjudication. Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that he had filed the suit to restrain his mother from alienating the suit property and to restrain the respondent no.1 from interfering in the suit property which was dismissed by the trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 24/03/2015. He had preferred an appeal before the District Court but which had gone at a tangent to the issue of mundkarship and to remand the matter to the trial Court with a direction to refer the issue of mu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By these two petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Act ), both the petitioners have impugned part of the arbitral award dated 6th December 2011. By consent of the parties, both the arbitration petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these arbitration petitions are under:- 2. The petitioner in Arbitration Petition No.341 of 2012 was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings whereas the petitioner in Arbitration Petition No.1017 of 2012 was the original claimant. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the aforesaid proceedings are described as they were described in the arbitral proceedings in the later part of this judgment as the claimant or the original respondent as the case may be. 3. The claimant is engaged in the business inter alia of operating private FM Radio Stations in various cities in pursuance of the lic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Revati Mohite Dere, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Learned Counsel waive notice for the respective respondents. 3. Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. By this PIL, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are social activists, have alleged gender discrimination and arbitrary denial of access to women in the sanctum sanctorum at the Haji Ali Dargah. 5. The petitioners state that they are the office bearers of `Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan' a national secular autonomous mass movement of Muslim Women with over 50,000 members in 15 States. According to the petitioners, since their childhood, they were visiting the Haji Ali Dargah, the Dargah of Pir Haji Ali Shah Bukhari (R.A.), the patron saint and during their visits, were permitted to enter the sanctum sanctorum where the saint lied buried, through a separate entry earmarked only for women to enable them t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (A.S.Oka, J.) 1. Considering the nature of controversy, the Appeal was heard in camera. We are directing that the names of the parties shall be masked in the title of this judgment. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant (wife) and the Respondent (husband) appearing in person. By the impugned decree passed by the learned Judge of the 4th Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, the Petition filed by the Appellant for a decree of divorce and possession has been dismissed. 3. In the Petition filed by the Appellant, the first prayer was for passing a decree of dissolution of marriage solemnized on 19 May 1991 between the Appellant and the Respondent on the grounds incorporated under clauses i(a) and i(b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the said Act"). Thus, the decree was sought on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The second prayer in the Petition was for directing the Respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Criminal Appeal No.482 of 2015 has been filed by the Appellant original accused who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Special Child Case No.1 of 2013 on 29th April 2015 under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("the Act" in brief) and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for one year. The trial Court directed that if fine is recovered, Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) from the same be paid to the Complainant as compensation. The case of the prosecutrix (without naming, and hereafter referred as "victim") has been referred to the District Victim Compensation Board, Hingoli with recommendation to give adequate compensation to the victim. 2. Criminal Appeal No.181 of 2016 has been filed by the victim seeking enhancement in the compensation to the tune of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Rule. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia challenging (i) the termination letter dated 27 September, 2012 issued by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2 terminating the lease dated 29 October, 1935; and (ii) the Show Cause Notices ( SCNs ) both dated 18 February, 2013, issued by Respondent No.4 under Sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the PP Act ). 3. The property in question is all that piece and parcel of land admeasuring approximately 1036.71 sq. mtrs. bearing plot No.26 (old RR No.1245) and cadestral Survey No. 10/384 of Colaba division together with the building standing thereon consisting of ground + four floors, two garages and a pump-house (hereinafter referred to as said property ). At the outset, we must mention here that it is not in dispute before us that the 1st ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act ), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 23rd March, 2009 as modified by an order dated 22nd May, 2009 and the impugned additional award dated 30th November, 2013 as corrected by an order dated 9th January, 2014. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this arbitration petition are as under: 2. It was the case of the respondent that the petitioner approached the respondent for taking 10 Tata Estate Cars on hire purchase basis. The parties entered into another Hire Purchase Agreement on 10th March, 1995 in respect of the 10 cars bearing Nos.MH-06-3236, MH-06-3229, MH-06-3230, MH-06-3227, MH-06-3224, MH-06-3226, MH-06-3225, MH-06-3223, MH-06-3228 and MH-06-3231. The total agreement valued was Rs.56,49,156/-, including interest which was to be paid in monthly installments of Rs.1,56,921/- over a period of 36 months from 10th March, 1995 to 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Gupte, J. 1. The question raised in this reference is : Whether the Prothonotary and Senior Master has power to set aside an order of dismissal passed by him under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980? 2. Writ Petition (L) Nos.3016 of 2014 and 672 of 2014 were dismissed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 for non-removal of office objections. On oral requests, the Prothonotary set aside the orders of dismissal and restored the petitions to the file. When the petitions came up before the Court, a Division Bench (V.M. Kanade and Dr. Shalini PhansalkarJoshi, JJ.) was of the view that there is a conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court on the question as to whether the Prothonotary and Senior Master has the power to restore a suit or a writ petition dismissed by him under Rule 986. The learned Judges, in the premises, directed the petitions to be placed befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a declaration that section 41D of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 amended by way of insertion by the Maharashtra Act No. XVI of 1995 called the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy and Amendment) Act, 1995 as also Rule 31AAA of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 as ultra vires the constitution of India being beyond legislative competence of the Maharashtra State legislature, void and of no legal effect. 2. The declaration is claimed, according to the petitioners, because these provisions curtail/restrict/withdraw the sale tax incentives by way of deferral availed by the petitioners. 3. In the alternative and in the event this court were to uphold the constitutional validity of the above provisions, then, they ought to be read down so as not to affect the sales tax incentives by way of deferral as availed by the petitioners. They would pray that this court should, therefore hold that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the adjudication of the claim for damages in lieu of reinstatement awarded to the respondent in the dispute filed by the respondent under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the said Act ]. 3. The respondent was appointed on the post of clerk at the petitioner Bank which is duly registered under the provisions of the said Act. The respondent was thereafter promoted to the post of Branch Manager. During his course of service, a departmental enquiry was conducted against him on charges of financial misappropriation. After issuing a show cause notice on 27-3-2000 and pursuant to the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Bank terminated the services of the respondent on 28-4-2000. The respondent being aggrieved filed a dispute under Section 91 of the said Act before the Cooperative Court seeking a declaration that the re...
Tag this Judgment!