Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-23-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. Index Sr.No.ContentsPage No.1Judgment Title.12Events-9 The Petitioner-Borrower-Blue Coast Hotels Limited (BCHL)'s case.9IFCI-Respondent No.1's case.12ITC Limited-the Purchaser's case.173High Court Proceedings.234Relevant provisions of SARFAESI Act.25 The Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002.36 Transfer of Property Act, 1882.445The submissions and Judgments by BCHL in WP No.222 of 2015.486Events and submissions of BCHL in Writ Petition No.1150 of 2015 referring to Section 14 Application.517Submissions and Judgments in Writ Petition No.2486 of 2015, to set aside the auction and the sale.578Judgments in opposition, and in additional in above Writ Petition No.2486 of 2015 by ITC.599Basic submissions of IFCI/ITC and supporting Judgments.59 COMMON REASONS 10Scheme and object of the Act.6511BCHL prayers and reliefs in respective petitions revolving around the property (Park Hyatt Hotel).7712 Description of the Immovable Properties including of Agriculture and moveable ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Mar-17-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. G. Agni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. The above Writ Petition seeks for a direction inter-alia to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 10.07.2014 and 30.10.2014 and the impugned notices dated 31.10.2011 and 20.11.2013 issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as the SARFAESI Act ) being illegal and bad in law. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioners are that the petitioner no.1 appointed one Mr. Ajay Verma, proprietor of M/s. Aesquire Estates to develop a plot of land belonging to the petitioner no.1. The said Mr. Ajay Verma availed a loan from the respondent no.1 by offering a security of the petitioners' land with building. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-13-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 19th August, 2013 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane (for short 'Caste Scrutiny Committee') whereby the application of the petitioner for validation of her caste certificate, certifying that she belongs to 'Halba scheduled tribe' has been rejected invalidating the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. 2. Conspectus of facts as would fall for our consideration are thus : The petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Dental Sciences course. In June 2012 at the time of filing of the petition the petitioner was studying in the first year in respondent No.3-Institution. The petitioner claimed to belong to the 'Halba' tribe which is listed as a schedule tribe in the Presidential Order. A caste certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mumbai Suburban District dated 30th Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-19-2016
CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION.................................................... 4 B. FACTS..................................................................... 6 C. MAINTAINABILITY...............................................12 D. LIMITATION..........................................................78 E. RELIEFS AND ORDER...........................................87 A. INTRODUCTION 1. The facts of the case are straightforward. The issues they raise, though narrow, are not. A very great deal of learning has been cited on both sides of the debate: some of the precedents are very old indeed. Counsel have argued that later decisions effectively upturn the older ones, even if they do not say so in so many words. There are two principal issues of law: first, limitation; and, second, whether the jurisdiction of a civil court is ousted in claim such as this because of the statutory provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 ( MPTA ) (Earlier the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Act 29 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Aug-12-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, Rahuri, District Ahmednagar has preferred one group of Writ Petitions and the identically placed Respondents/Daily Wage Employees in the said petitions have also filed the second group of Writ Petitions wherein the Agriculture University is the Respondent. For the sake of brevity, the Agriculture University in these matters shall be referred to as the University and the Daily Wage Employees, who are Respondents in the petitions filed by the University and are Petitioners in their own group of petitions, shall be referred to as the Workers . 3. While issuing notice, this Court by it s order dated 22.04.2016 had directed that the amount deposited by the Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, Rahuri with the Appellate Authority (PGA) shall not be disbursed until further orders. 4. The University is aggrieved by the common judgment dated 20.10....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-18-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. 2. This is an unfortunate case wherein the petitioner who retired after 39 years of unblemished service with the 1st respondent, has been deprived of the benefits of pension under the Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note dated 27 April 2010, when admittedly he is held eligible for pension, the reason being that the petitioner did not deposit within three days, some amount as stated under the 1st Respondent's acceptance letter. In nutshell the facts are: 3. The petitioner joined service of the 1st respondent as a subordinate staff on 4 March 1967. After thirty nine years of service, the petitioner superannuated on 31 October 2006. 4. It is the petitioner's case that the 1st respondent had earlier entered into a settlement with the Bank employees and accordingly a Circular/Notification was issued under which employees who retired post 1995 (29 September 1995) were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-06-2016
P.C.: 1. The applications are moved for pre arrest bail as the applicants/accused are facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments Act) in C.R. No. 316 of 2013 registered with Oshiwara police station, Mumbai. The offence is registered at the instance of one Gurupreetsingh Anand on 16th August, 2013. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that in the year 2000 one Vijay Ishwaran and Joseph, the founders of QI Group formed a company under the name and style Gold Quest International Private Limited . The applicants/accused also joined the said group in 2006. Gold Quest International Private Limited used to sale gold plated coins. In the year 2000 the rate of gold was Rs. 5,000/- per 10 gms., however, they used to sale the gold plated coins for Rs. 30,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-04-2016
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. As per the order passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, this Appeal is placed before us for deciding following questions of law, which are framed by learned Single Judge of this Court [Coram : R.C. Chavan, J.], when the Appeal was placed before him for admission:- (I) Does Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act provide adequate protection to the parties from transfers pendent lite since such transferees are not required to be, or entitled as of right to be, impleaded as parties to the suit and cannot resist execution proceedings in view of provisions of Order XXI Rule 100 of the Code as amended by this Court? (II) Would plaintiffs' registering notices of their suits under Section 18 of the Indian Registration Act (though such registration may not be compulsory) not secure for plaintiffs more than what an injunction could secure since transferees, who purchase property, pendente lite in spite of such registration would be deemed to have n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Jun-06-2016
1. This revision application has been filed to seek copies of the record of C.A. No.U-3733/ E-122 R.No.122 dated 4-4-2016, which, according to the applicant, was filed in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 by the office of the Government Pleader. Normally, the application would either be allowed or dismissed for the reasons to be stated in the order to be passed. There would also not be any objection for the Court if the applicant wanted to withdraw the revision application. This could have been permitted by this Court if it had been a simple revision application without making any serious allegations assailing the record of this Court and without mud-slinging the sitting Judges and the officers of this Court. The revision application along with the documents and pursis on record contain all sorts of wild allegations amounting to scurrilous attack on the sitting Judges, the officers of this Court, including the Government Pleader, and the record of this Court. Such allegations...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jun-07-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the impugned judgment and order dated 8th May, 2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench at Mumbai [for short 'CAT'] in Original application No.217/2013. There is also prayer for quashing and setting aside the order of termination of the services of the petitioner issued by the Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan, New Delhi. Further direction is sought to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the employment. It is further prayed to hold and declare that Article 81 [B] of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalaya, is ultra vires to Article 14 of the constitution of India. 2. The CAT has extensively referred the facts of the case in the impugned judgment, and therefore, we do not feel it necessary to reproduce the said facts; as and when it is necessary we will make a reference to the relevant facts from the impugned judgment. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the ...
Tag this Judgment!