Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2012Bom101; 2012(2)ALLMR737; 2012(3)MhLj669
ORDER1. The appellants (original plaintiffs) are the daughters of respondent No.1 (original defendant No.1). Respondent No.2 (original defendant No. 2) is the bank from which respondent No.1 has taken a loan which has not been repaid. Respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act).2. The appellants have sued to protect the share that they claim in the property mortgaged to the bank by respondent No.1. They claim 2/3rd share therein as coparceners of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) consisting of themselves and respondent No.1. As the daughters of respondent No.1 they claim in the capacity as coparcener under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 (HSA) which came to be substituted by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 (39 of 1956) which came into effect from 9 September 2005 (HSA).3. Upon the creation of the mortgage in respect of the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR1230
Tambe, J.1. One of the questions raised in this application relates to the constitutionality of Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act (Act VIII of 1878) and, therefore, a notice was issued to the Attorney General. The contention is that it violates the constitutional guarantee to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business enshrined in Sub-clauses (1) and (g) of Clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.2. Petitioner Pukhraj Jain, a national and citizen of India, owns a gold and silver shop at Rajnandgaon and carries on business of a goldsmith under the name and style of 'Champalal Pukhraj'. The petitioner claims that his business is of buying and selling gold and that he was doing business both at Rajnandgaon and Tatanagar.3. On October 25, 1956, while he was travelling in a train he was intercepted at Raigarh railway station at about 4.30 p.m. by the Customs Inspector (P & I) and he was found in pos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR737
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner who is a practising advocate and who also claims to be a public spirited citizen, has approached this Court by way of present Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein, on the strength of Constitutional mandate contained in Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India, he questions the authority of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to hold the posts of `Parliamentary Secretaries' and enjoy the status of Cabinet Minister and also questions respondent Nos. 5 to 7 appointed to different posts in the State administration, as to how they enjoy the status and rank of Cabinet Minister. He also prays that the orders at Annexures `P2' collectively and `P4' collectively relating to respective group of respondents be revoked and cancelled being violative of the Constitutional mandate.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the recent Assembly Elections which were held in May 2007, resulted in the fractured mandate from the elect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR641; 2008(1)BomCR779
Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging an order dated 22nd December 2006 confirming the order passed by the Controller of Accommodation, Mumbai dated 12th December 2005 in respect of the premises bearing Room No. 32, Second Floor, Gopal Bhuvan, Khed Galli, Kaka Saheb Gadgil Marg, Dadar, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as Requisitioned Premises).2. The facts necessary to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner are these. Petitioner's husband Krishnaji was allotted requisitioned premises in the year 1954 vide allotment Order No. R-9/117-B/ Gopal Bhuvan dated 2nd May, 1954. He retired in the year 1982 and subsequently expired on 20th May, 1997.3. It is the case of petitioner that she resides in the requisitioned premises with her son, daughter in law and grand daughter. They do not have any other place of residence. It is their case that they have been paying rent to the first respondent which in turn was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. All these matters are taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. In these letters patent appeals and writ petitions, learned Counsel for both parties made their submissions on the questions, which we have framed in this judgment. 3. Advocate Shri Khapre appearing for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.368/2011 made the following submissions : (i) The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was enacted to regulate and make better provisions for the administration of public religious and charitable Trusts in the State of Bombay. Various officers who are required to implement the provisions of the said B.P.T. Act, 1950, namely the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Deputy Charity Commissioner, Joint Charity Commissioner and Charity Commissioner are performing judicial functions or in respect of some provisions; the quasi-judicial functions. That is evident from the reading of several pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mrs. A. Agni, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Petition, inter alia, prays for a direction to quash and set aside the communication dated 19.09.2013 of the Deputy Collector directing the petitioner to pay conversation fees in terms of the Goa Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act 2013 and accordingly direct the Respondents to recalculate the fees payable by the Petitioner on the basis of the area of conversion at the rates applicable on the date of making of the application dated 08.03.2013 with further direction that the excess fees recovered from the Petitioner towards conversion fees be refunded with interest at the rate of 12% per annum thereof. 3. Briefly, it is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner along with the other co-owners of the property, had applied for permission under Section 32 of the Goa Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code 1968 to con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)ALLMR670; 2003(3)BomCR450; 2003(1)MhLj401
R.K. Batta, J. 1. The issue involved in these petitions, is same and as such it is proposed to dispose of both the writ petitions by a common Judgment.2. In both the writ petitions, there is a challenge to the validity of provisions of Section 9A of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act') as amended by Maharashtra Act No. 7 of 1992 which, according to the petitioners, is ultra vires with the provisions of the Constitution insofar as it seeks to levy inspection fee on the money lenders. Petitioners, therefore, seek striking down of Section 9A of the said Act. Consequently, the petitioners also sought quashing of the Demand Notice for payment of inspection fee.3. We may refer to some facts in Writ Petition No. 3469/93 which are more comprehensive. Petitioners therein are carrying money lending business and hold money lending licence issued under the provisions of the said Act. This petition gives history of incorporation of Section 9A and states that, fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(3)BomCR230
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The dispute in this petition relates to two plots of lands bearing Nos. 216 and 217 at Backbay Reclamation, Block III and which are at present under sea. The petitioners are a Nationalised Bank and body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and carry on business of banking in diverse places in India. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the principal relief claimed is grant of permission to erect the intended building on these two plots after reclamation and permission to erect building for office purpose by use of floor space index of 3.5. To appreciate the claim made by the petitioner Bank and by Bank of India in the companion petition, it is necessary to exhaustively set out the facts.2. The State Government concerned at the growing congestion in Greater Bombay in the year 1960 appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. D.R. Gadgil, who was the Director of Gok...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(1)ALLMR604; 2008(2)BomCR780; [2009]147CompCas579(Bom); [2008]82SCL79(Bom)
J.N. Patel, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenges the decision of the Appellate Authority under Section 20 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, which dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 6th March, 1997 passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (S.E.B.I.) in the case of SESA Goa, which rejected the complaint lodged by the petitioner in the matter of acquisition of Sesa Goa Co. Ltd. by MITSUI & Co. of Japan through Finsider International Co. Ltd. It was the case of the petitioner that the said acquisition was in violation of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations of 1994') and in violation of the provisions of Clauses 40A and B of the Listing Agreement of the Stock Exchange. 3. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1989Bom325; 1988(3)BomCR274; (1989)91BOMLR552; 1988MhLJ863
P.S. Shah, J.1. This appeal is preferred by original Opponent 3, a partnership firm Inderjeet Singh and sons which carries on a transport business against the judgment and order dt. April 9, 1984 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Pune ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal ') in Application No. 120 of 1981 filled by Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 against the appellant and Respondents Nos 5 to 7. Respondents 5 and 6 are original Opponents 1 and 2 and Respondent 7 is the Insurance Company which was Opponents 4 in the application, The tribunal passed an award directing the Appellant and Respondents 5 to 7 to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of compensation together with future interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realization together with the costs of the application. The liability of the Insurance Company was restricted to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.2. The accident took place on Jan. 15 1981 at about 4.35 p.m. on Range Hills...
Tag this Judgment!