Court : Mumbai Nagpur
oral judgment: (anoop v. mohta, j.) 1. rule, returnable forthwith. heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. the petitioner was rusticated therefore, this petition. mahatma gandhi antarrashtriya hindi vishwavidyalaya act, 1996 (for short the said act ) provides for dispute settlement mechanism in sections 32, 33 and 34 for the students in disciplinary cases which are reproduced as under: .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... to mr. shyam m. ruia (at the address of mr. shyam m. ruia given above) with a copy to ms. lira goswami, associated law advisers, 612 antriksh bhawan, 22 kasturba gandhi marg, new delhi-110 001, india (advocate for "mgg") at fax number (91)(11)3352231 or (91)(11)3352226.10. the parties agree that "mgg" do hereby full and irrevocable .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1998Bom264; 1998(1)ALLMR587; 1998(4)BomCR83; II(1998)DMC271; 1998(1)MhLj618
ORDERV.P. Tipnis, J.1. This appeal, which was admitted by the 1st Court on 29th July 1997, was taken up for hearing as it was stated on behalf of the appellant that the order is such that it is impossible for him to comply with and will result into grave hardship to the appellant-husband.2. The order impugned is an ad-interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in a Notice of Motion taken out in a suit filed by the wife under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. The learned Judge by the impugned order dated 17th July 1997 awarded an ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- per month commencing from July 1997. The amount, the learned Judge clarified would include Rs. 1,600/- which the defendant-husband is prepared to pay for the maintenance of the child.3. Mr. Naphade, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-husband, read out the impugned order and raised three points....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The Honourable the Chief Justice has constituted this Full Bench in order to resolve a conflict between the conflicting views which have been expressed by two Division Benches of this Court. In our detailed order dated 24th April, 2014 we noticed that conflict and by consent of parties we formulated the questions which have to be answered by us. They read as under:- (1) Does Section 3(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 r/w Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 save the orders of exemption including all terms and conditions thereof passed under Section 20(1) of the Principal Act, namely, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and all actions taken there-under? (2) Whether, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 r/w Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 apply to the repeal of the Principal Act by the Repealing Act, 1999? (3) Whether in view ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(1)ARBLR512(Bom); 2008(1)BomCR768; (2007)109BOMLR1545; [2007]79SCL451(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Respondent No. 1 had filed an Arbitration Reference against the present Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, under Bye-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange, Mumbai. The Arbitral Tribunal passed an Award on 19.03.2002 against the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. That Award was challenged by the Petitioner before this Court in Arbitration Petition No. 264 of 2003. A learned Judge of this Court was pleased to set aside the Award by Judgment dated 31.08.2004.2. Respondent No. 1 then filed Arbitration Reference No. 21 of 2005 against the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed an Application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.) It was the petitioner's contention that there was no agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1, nor was there any contract or dealing or transaction between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 1. The learned Arbitral Tribunal after hearing the parties by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Law of Arbitration was earlier governed by Indian Arbitration Act, 1899. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 also provided for arbitration as Special Proceedings in the following terms:89. Arbitration. (1) Save in so far as is otherwise provided by the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899; or by any other law for the time being in force, all references to arbitration whether by an order in suit or otherwise, and all proceedings there under, shall be governed by the provisions contained in the Second Schedule.(2) The provisions of the Second Schedule shall not affect any arbitration pending at the commencement of this Code, but shall apply to any arbitration after that date under any agreement or reference made before the commencement of this Code.The said provision however, was repealed by Section 49 and Schedule III of Arbitration Act (10 of 1940). The Arbitration Act of 1940 itself was repealed by Section 85 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2002Bom8; 2002(1)BomCR641; (2001)4BOMLR310; [2003]115CompCas116(Bom); 2001(4)MhLj425
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have filed a suit contending therein that the Defendant No. 1, which is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, entered into an agreement with the Plaintiffs dated 29th December, 1994 for giving some equipments on lease to the Defendants. The lease money of the equipments was also decided by that agreement. It is further contended that theDefendant No. 2 also entered into an agreement to give personal guarantee for due and punctual payment of all and every sum payable by the Defendant No. 1/Company under the lease agreement to the tune of Rs. 2,31,76,800/-. According to the Plaintiffs, as the Defendant No. 1 committed default in payment of lease money, the agreement was terminated and the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs for recovery of the possession of the lease equipments as also for recovery of arrears of lease money from the Defendant No. 1/Company. So far as the mon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR4111
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. In this group of writ petitions mainly two reliefs are claimed. First relief that is claimed is that in view of the enactment and coming into force of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) 2005 (herein after referred to as 'Central Act' ), which is the enactment enacted by the Parliament, Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 (herein after referred to as the 'State Act' ) does not operate in relation to the private security agencies. The second main prayer is that in case it is held that the State Act continues to operate in relation to the private security agencies, then the State Government should be directed to pass orders on the proposal pending before it under Section 23 of the State Act for exemption from the provisions of the State Act immediately. 2. Writ Petition No. 1804 of 2007 has been filed by the Association of the Security agencies and also by 22 security agencies. According to averments in the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2002]109CompCas18(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The notices of motion in Suit No. 3910 of 1997 seek to challenge the legality and validity of substantial acquisitions of shares by defendants Nos. 1 to 11 in defendant No. 12-company allegedly in violation of the provisions of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1994, and pray for the annulment thereof, particularly in the context of the breaches of regulations 9 and 10 which require a public announcement of the intention to acquire substantial shares in certain circumstances. Defendants Nos. 1 to 11 on the other hand, dispute the right of third parties like the plaintiffs to challenge such acquisitions, the rights of plaintiffs claimed to be based in common law and/or statute and as to whether the voting rights flowing from such shares can be injuncted by filing a suit in the context of the relevant provisions of the Companies Act. Consequently, the questions pertaining to balance of convenience and appropriate orders to be passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR131; 2008(6)MhLj853
V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Perused the petition. Heard finally by consent of parties.This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order passed by the 7th Family Court, Mumbai in Petition No. A-1301 of 2006 refusing to permit the Petitioner to withdraw his consent, which was given at the time of presenting petition for divorce by mutual consent, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short).The Factual Matrix:2. The petitioner-husband had filed petition under Section 9 of the Act, for decree of restitution of conjugal rights. During pendency of this petition, the respondent-wife made complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) with the Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai, against the petitioner. It was under investigation.The troubled marriage had also given rise to reciprocating demand for return of ornaments given in the marriage.Both parties, having realized that marriage is irretrievably bro...
Tag this Judgment!