Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR719; 2009(4)BomLR1451; 2009(2)MhLj925; 2009(3)AllMR40
A.P. Lavande, J.1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 320/2008 and the reference made in Writ Petition Nos. 4910/2008 and 4911/2008 are being disposed of by the common Judgment since the question of law involved in the appeal as well as in the reference is identical.2. We have heard Mr. C.A. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.V. Sohoni, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition Nos. 4910/2008 and 4911/2008 and Mrs. S. Wandile, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 4911/2008 and Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Wandile, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. P.C. Khajanchi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 320/2008.3. In Writ Petition Nos. 4910/2008 and 4911/2008 the learned Single Judge held that the view taken by another learned Judge in Writ Petition No. 2203/08 ( Javed Sheikh Mustaque Patel v. State of Maharashtra and O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2007Bom149; 2007(3)ALLMR304; 2007(2)ARBLR362(Bom); 2007(3)BomCR393; 2008(1)CTC7
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. In view of a divergence of the views in two judgments of learned Single Judges of this Court, the first being in Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. v. Sharad Shetkari Soot Girni Niyamit : 2000(2)BomCR878 and the second in Omni Bus Industrial Development Corporation of Daman, Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli Ltd. v. M.N. Dhanani (Arbitration Appeal No. 1 of 2000) decided on 17th December, 2002, a reference was made to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice by another learned Single Judge in the appeal under Arbitration Act No. 3 of 2004 (New Arbitration Appeal No. 14 of 2005) by the order dated 23rd March, 2004 alongwith a request to refer the matter to a larger bench. This Full Bench has been, accordingly, constituted by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.2. In Omni Bus Industrial Development Corporation, the learned Judge while dealing with the definition of 'Court', under Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act of 1996'), has taken a view that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(1)ALLMR1; 2002(3)BomCR219
H. L. Gokhale, J.1. All the writ petitions in Group (A) above invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise common questions with respect to the correctness and legality of the Maharashtra Health Sciences Common Entrance Test (MH-CET 2001) conducted by the State of Maharashtra and the Director of Medical Education and Research of the State of Maharashtra and the results of this Common Entrance Test. Some of these petitions have been filed on the Original Side of this High Court whereas some of them are filed on the Appellate Side and one writ petition is arising out of a letter sent by a student Miss Priyanka Dinkar Borde from Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar, which letter has been converted into a suo motu writ petition. These petitions raise questions with respect to the legality and validity of the results of this examination which were declared on 17th May, 2001 and the consequent admissions to various medical courses. These petitions are undoubtedly of urgent nature. All o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)87TTJ(Mumbai)183
ORDERBeharilal, A.M.The departmental appeal for the assessment year 1992-93 has been directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XVII, Bombay, dated 16-11-1995. The departmental appeal and the cross-appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94 have been directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Central IV, Mumbai, dated 17-2-1997. One consolidated order is being passed for the sake of brevity and convenience; as the issues involved in these appeals are common.2. The assessee is a partnership-firm engaged in the wholesale business of dry fruit and business in real estate comprising of construction of buildings of residential flats, office premises, shops, godowns, row houses, etc. which are sold to prospective buyers. For both the divisions of business the assessee maintains one set of account books. For the construction division, the assessee has adopted estimation of profit on work-in-progress and on that basis profit is estimated every year showi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. This Commercial Appeal is filed by the Appellant-Original Defendant against the Judgment and order dated 6 June 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge of the Commercial Division in Summons for Judgment whereby, refused an unconditional leave to defend and has granted a leave to defend, but conditional. Preliminary objection to the maintainability of Commercial Appeal. 2. To decide the preliminary objection of the maintainability of Commercial Appeal as filed, as raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents, though the parties have consented to hear the Appeal on merits, we have relisted the matter for hearing on the maintainability as it goes to the root of the matter in view of the confusion prevailing in the Office/Registry after the transfer of such pending summary suits because of the provisions of The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (for short, The Commercial Courts Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom42; (1948)50BOMLR450
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to eject his tenant. The defendant has pleaded the protection of the Rent Restriction Act. At the hearing; of the suit before Mr. Justice Desai attention was drawn to the relevant provisions. of Bombay Act LVII of 1947 under which all pending suits relating to recovery or fixing of rent or possession of premises to which that Act applied had to be transferred to and continued before the Court of Small Causes, Bombay. It was then contended both by the plaintiff and the defendant that Sections 28, 29 and 50 of that Act were ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature and were also repugnant to existing law and void and of no effect. Mr. Justice Desai directed that the plaint should be amended to make the necessary averments and that the Province of Bombay should be made a party to the suit. Consequently the plaint was amended and para, 2-A was added, containing the relevant averments and the Province of Bombay was made a party defen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR673; 2009(111)BomLR1989; 2009(4)MhLj163
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, has challenged in this writ petition judgment and order dated 26/9/08 delivered by The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ('MAT' for short) in Original Application No. 324 of 2008.2. The 1st respondent holds B.E. (Civil) degree. In 1976 he joined as Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State Government. He was recruited directly through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission as Asstt. Executive Engineer Class I in 1982. In due course he was promoted as Chief Engineer. He worked as Chief Engineer Water Resources Development Centre, Aurangabad. In November, 2006 he was transferred as Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Local Sector, Pune. He was working in that post from 4/11/06. Even though he had not completed his normal tenure of three years, he was transferred as Chief Engineer M.M.R.D.A, Mumbai by order dated 10/1/08. By the same order respondent 2, who was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1986Bom340; 1986(3)BomCR106; (1985)87BOMLR387
V.A. Mohta, J.1. What is the ambit and scope of Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965?Whether the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 is a complete Code for bonus payable under the said Act? If the answer is in affirmative, whether an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is maintainable for claiming minimum bonus payable under Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965?These two questions need determination by the Full Bench. The reference is made by a Division Bench of this Court in a Letters Patent Appeal No. 76 of 1982 arising out of Writ Petition No. 667 of 1980 (See ILR (1984) Bom 1863). Following is the relevant backdrop.2. Sometime in 1977, the employees (respondents Nos. 13 to 17 to the appeal) applied under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) for computation of claims for minimum bonus payable under Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 ('Bonus Act'). Though initially the claim covered period commencing from 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR3650
A.V. Potdar, J.1. Rule.2. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is finally heard at the stage of admission.3. By the present writ petition under Article 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, initially the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus for direction to the first respondent to decide the appeal challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30th August 2008, with further prayers for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the sonography machine in the light of directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7973/2008 dated 17th December 2008. During pendancy of the writ petition, the prayers were added to quash and set aside the order dated 30/08/2008 passed by the 2nd respondent suspending the registration of Genetic Clinic of the petitioner at (Exh.I, paper book page No. 39) and to quash and set aside the order dated 24/03/2009 (Exh.L at paper book page No. 52) passed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)107BOMLR926
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard. Admit. With consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. 2. This letters patent appeal arising from the judgment of this Court (Single Bench) in Writ Petition No. 153/99 raises an important question of law for our consideration, namely :-'Whether the termination of service of a Central Government employee by invoking the powers under the applicable Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution is required to be examined on the touch-stone of Articles 311, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, or, on the ground of failure to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?'Writ Petition No. 153/99 was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal II on 18th June, 1998 in Reference No. CGIT-2/39/1986 and by the said order the present respondent No. 2/employee was directed to be reinstated with continuity in service and with ful...
Tag this Judgment!