Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1977Bom99
Masodkar, J. 1. These 2661 cases have clogged the Court's corridors for considerable time, challenging the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No. 27 of 1961) as amended by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) and (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act No. 21 of 1975) Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Amendment Act, 1975 (Act No. 47 of 1975) and the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Act No. 2 of 1976).2. The petitioners raised almost Common questions and the petitions can be decided by an order indicating separate points urged in support of different petitioners' claims. It is assumed and not disputed that the petitioner in each petition is aggrieved by the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling On Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No. 27 of 1961) as amended and in issue.3. At the outset it must be stated that in Special Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1974Bom142; 1974MhLJ183
ORDER1. the present peritioner Jamnabai claims to be the successor of one Deokabai, who died on February 1. 1966, Said deokanai was the tenure holder of survey No. 121/1 and survey No. 122. of village Kandli, district Amarland was leased to Suryabhan, the present respondent, and further that the lease of Suryabhan was governed by the provisions of section 58(I) (c) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereafter called the Act).2. Jamnabai gave notice on 16-5-1966 and applied for possession on September 30, 1967.3. This application has been found to be barred by time, as having been filed after one year from the death of original landlady Deokabai, i.e., February 1, 1966. All the authorities under the provisions of the act have concurred in this view.4. To find out limitation so as to non-suit the present petitioner, provisions of sub-section (2) (B) of section 38 of the Act have been applied. It is found that this sub-section and the provisions cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(4)ALLMR143; 2001(3)BomCR652
B. B. Srikrishna. J. 1. This appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenges the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 6th/7th November, 2000 dismissing the petition to set aside the arbitral Award. FACTS 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, concisely stated, are as under :- The appellant is a nationalised bank, carrying on the business of banking in its various branches and offices in the city of Mumbal. The respondent is a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 doing business in real estate including the business of hiring out built up areas of business premises. The respondent, at the material time, was the owner of certain premises situated on the ground floor and basement of Maker Chamber No. IV. Nariman Point. Mumbai 400 021. These premises were offered to the appellant under agreements of leave and licence dated 23rd May. 1988 and 27th June, 1989. Under the agreement of 23rd May, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1989Bom72; 1989(2)BomCR45
Mookerjee, C.J.1. Mr. Savant appearing on behalf of the Respondents has raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of this Appeal preferred against the order dt. 9th Mar., 1988 of Daud, J. allowing the Appeal under S. 104(I) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Preferred by the original Defendants 8 and 9 - Respondents 8 and 9 against the order under O.XXXIS, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code passed by the learned Judge. City Civil Court, Bombay, upon the Plaintiffs'-Appellants' Notice of motion. In view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Obedur Rehman v. Almedali Bharucha. : AIR1983Bom120 and the recent Divison Bench judgment in the case of Krishna Yeshwant Shirodkar v. Subhash Krishna Patil (Letters Patent Appeal No. 129 of 1987 disposed of on 10th Feb. 1988) reported in : AIR1989Bom68 ) sitting in appeal, we are bound to take the same view that the present Appeal is barred under S. 104(2) of the Civil P.C. and. Therefore, the Appeal is liable to fail without e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR657; 2006(1)BomCR70; (2005)107BOMLR854
Acts/Rules/Orders: Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 - Order 21, Rules 10, 12, 32, 32(1) to (4), 32(5), 35, 97(1), 97(2), 98, 98(2), 99, 101, 102, 103, 104 and 105; - Order 39, Rule 1; Advocates' Act, 1961 ;Bombay High Court (O.S) Rules;Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 55(1) and 52;Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3, 12 and 14Cases Referred: Mukund Bapu Jadhav v. Tanu Sakhu Pawar, A.I.R. 1933 Bombay 457; Subhan B. Shaikh Noor v. Abdul Samad Haji Abdul Raheman, 1978 Mh.L.J. 519; Babulal v. Hazarilal Kishori Lal and Ors., (1982) 3 S.C.R. 94; Silverline Forum Pvt.Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and Anr., (1998) 3 S.C.C. 723; Bhanwar Lal v. Satyanarain and Anr., A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 358; Krishna Tukaram v. Mahadeo Krishnaji, A.I.R. 1953 Bombay 227; Krishna Kumar Khemka v. Grindlays Bank, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 899; Sujit Singh and Ors. v. Harbans Singh and Ors., 1995 (6) SCC 50; Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1673; Satya Brata Biswal v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(3)BomCR446; 2005(3)MhLj484
Rohee K.J., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, respondent No. 1 in person and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 in both the Letters Patent Appeal.2. The appellant/original non-applicant No. 2 preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 115 of 1996 against the judgment dated 5-9-1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 177 of 1984, by which M.C.A. No. 249 of 1983 was remanded to the District Court for fresh consideration and decision. Letters Patent Appeal No. 56 of 1998 has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 23-3-1998 passed by the Single Judge in First Appeal No. 476 of 1997 directing that the First Appeal be heard with Letters Patent Appeal No. 115 of 1996.3. The facts which are relevant for the purposes of the present appeal are that respondent No. 1/original applicant preferred an application under Section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as C.N.C. Act for brevity) for mandatory injunct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent, Appeal is taken up for hearing forthwith. It is agreed between the parties that the final hearing of the Appeal shall be treated as disposal of Notice of Motion No. 271 of 2010 pending before the learned Single Judge.2. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 4th February 2010 passed in the aforementioned Notice of Motion which was moved by the Appellant original Applicant. The parties to this Notice of Motion are Respondent No. 1original Plaintiff and original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 being Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. Any reference to them as per their original position be understood accordingly.3. The learned Single Judge passed an adinterim order and posted the Notice of Motion for hearing and final disposal. However, the learned Judge directed the Applicant to furnish security to the extent of US $ 7.52 million as a precondition for vacating the order of arrest of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: By this Summons for Judgment, the Plaintiff seeks to recover a sum of Rs.3,39,852/- with interest. The suit is based on Bill of Exchange drawn by the Defendant and is dishonoured on presentation. 2. The Plaintiff had granted this discounting facility to M/s.Biotor Industries Ltd. (Biotor) to the tune of Rs.50 crores so as to facilitate the payment to its vendors towards its supply of raw material and the goods. The Defendant had sold goods to the said M/s. Biotor. The Defendant and M/s.Biotor had agreed that in respect of such goods supplied by the Defendant to M/s. Biotor, the Bill of Exchange would be drawn by the Defendant, would be accepted by the said M/s. Biotor and thereafter would be discounted with the Plaintiff. Accordingly Plaintiff drew the Bill of Exchange on 23rd March, 2009 in the sum of Rs.3,39,852/. The said Bill of Exchange was accepted by M/s. Biotor. It is not in dispute that the said Bill of Exchange was thereafter discounted by the Defendant with th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: By this Summons for Judgment, the Plaintiff seeks to recover a sum of Rs.3,39,852/- with interest. The suit is based on Bill of Exchange drawn by the Defendant and is dishonoured on presentation. 2. The Plaintiff had granted this discounting facility to M/s.Biotor Industries Ltd. (Biotor) to the tune of Rs.50 crores so as to facilitate the payment to its vendors towards its supply of raw material and the goods. The Defendant had sold goods to the said M/s. Biotor. The Defendant and M/s.Biotor had agreed that in respect of such goods supplied by the Defendant to M/s. Biotor, the Bill of Exchange would be drawn by the Defendant, would be accepted by the said M/s. Biotor and thereafter would be discounted with the Plaintiff. Accordingly Plaintiff drew the Bill of Exchange on 23rd March, 2009 in the sum of Rs.3,39,852/. The said Bill of Exchange was accepted by M/s. Biotor. It is not in dispute that the said Bill of Exchange was thereafter discounted by the Defendant with th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)69ITD336(Mum.)
1. Appellant is an individual. Search operations under s. 132(1) of the IT Act were commenced in his case at various places on 30th October, 1995, and continued upto 20th December, 1995. The assessee filed a return of "undisclosed income" under s. 158BC at Rs. 31,96,963 on 23rd September, 1996. The AO completed the assessment on 31st December, 1996 on a total "undisclosed income" at Rs. 4,52,27,690 and determined the tax payable at Rs. 2,71,36,614. Aggrieved by this order of the AO, the assessee has come in appeal to the Tribunal. The assessee has taken three additional grounds before us. Of these additional grounds, the first one is challenging the legality of the assessment, claiming the order to the time-barred and invalid. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are stated to be clarificatory in respect of original ground Nos. 16 and 31. Being legally permissible, the learned Departmental Representative had no objection to the admission of the additional grounds of appeal and hence, we proceed to dec...
Tag this Judgment!