Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1932Bom218; (1932)34BOMLR398
Tyabji, J.1. These are applications that I should declare the cases as being fit for appeal from judgments of mine passed in second appeal.2. The learned advocate, who appears in Civil Application No. 937 of 1931, relies upon the facts that in the case concerned an important question of law was involved; that I reversed the decree of the lower Court; that I characterised the questions of law involved as being complicated, and I considered them with some care and detail in my judgment. I notice with surprise and admire the restraint which has caused the omission of the ground that my decision is wrong. But I could not have allowed myself to be misled, or the party to be prejudiced, by this large-hearted omission : even if the omission had not been made up for by the almost irresistibly tactful suggestion that Courts are apt on such questions to take divergent views-leaving me to infer that another Court might take a view different from mine.3. In other cases, the ground of application i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1982Bom341; 2(1982)DMC204
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff Dr. Abdur Rahim under married Smt. Padma, respondent-defendant in the United Kingdom on 5th May 1966. At the time of marriage plaintiff Abdur Rahim was a Mohainmedan where as respondent Padma was a Hindu. Both of them were Indian citizens. Their domicile was India. Both of then held Indian passports. On 6th of May 1965 the plaintiff and the defendant went to the office of Registrar of Marriages at Weymouth. Before that a necessary notice of intention to marry was already given. There after on 6th May 1966 the parties went through the marriage ceremony before the Registrar and the said marriage was duly registered. The marriage certificate relating to this marriage duly authenticated and certified copy is also on record. From this certificate it appears that the marriage Act, 1949. After this marriage birth of Shabnam took place on 18th of May 1957. Of Shama on 19-11-68. Thereafter on 4th Apr., 1969 the plaintiff and the defendant with their c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Rule. Counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive notice. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petitioners, by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for order or direction restraining Respondent No.1 from holding the selection process for the post of Director by excluding them in the said selection process. 3. The petitioners are employed as professors in the respondent Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute. Respondent No.1 Institute is a premier Engineering College in the State of Maharashtra. The Institute is affiliated to the University of Mumbai. It has been conferred autonomous status for a period from 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 in accordance with the provisions contained in the Statutes 593 to 642 regarding grant of autonomous status to Affiliated College / Recognised Institution / University Department / University Institution. This is reinforced from the communication dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
U.V. Bakre, J. By this Letters Patent Appeal, the Judgment dated 14/11/2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 282 of 1999 has been challenged. 2. Facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, in short, are as follows : Eviction proceedings were initiated against the deceased appellant no.1 and his wife, the appellant no. 2(defendants) by respondents no. 2 to 7 and two others (plaintiffs), by way of Regular Civil Suit No. 267/1975 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji. The suit house is the house bearing Village Panchayat No. 525 situated at Taleigao. The Plaintiffs contended that the suit house was built up by one Radhabhai Khandeparkar alias Oidem, in the property of the plaintiffs with their permission and she was residing there alone as licensee and died in 1975 without leaving any heirs and upon her death, the suit house remained closed. The plaintiffs further claimed that on or about 28/07/1975, the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal. 2. By this application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 17th January, 2014 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Mumbai in Special Case No. 90/2010, by which the applicant's application seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, instituted against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act'), came to be rejected. 3. The short question that arises for determination in the present petition is, whether the applicant can be termed as a 'public servant' within the meaning of Section 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC' Act), in the facts of the present case. 4. The applicant is stated to be a highly qualified and renowned Structural Engineer with expertise of three decades in the said field. He is also stated to have been professionally trained in space analysis and finite element an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In all these petitions, common questions of fact and law are raised and, therefore, they can be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. 3. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involve a challenge to the orders of Medical Council of India (`MCI') and Maharashtra Medical Council ('MMC') against Petitioners/Doctors for breach of professional code of ethics. 4. We would take the facts in two petitions so that the principal arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the Respondents can be appreciated. Facts i n Writ Petition No.562 of 2014 (O.S.) : 5. In Writ Petition No.562 of 2014, the Petitioner-Dr. Shashikant Patel is a citizen of India. He is registered as a medical practitioner with Respondent no.2 MMC bearing registration no.47177. The Petitioner was appointed as a Professor of Anatomy by the medical college namely Melmaruvathur Adiparasakthi Insti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom266; (1934)36BOMLR510
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Barlee. The point involved is one of limitation and the necessary facts and dates are these. On July 3, 1916, the respondent obtained a money decree against Shankar, the father of the appellant, in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Poona. Then on November 3, 1917, Shankar died. On March 26, 1919, the decree-holder made an application (No. 49 of 1919) under Section 39 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of the decree for execution to the Dhulia Court. This application was made in ignorance of the death of the judgment-debtor. Notice was issued and the bailiff then reported that Shankar was dead. On July 21, 1919, an oral application was made by the judgment-creditor's pleader for time to make enquiries as to the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor. The application was granted and time was given for this purpose until August 15, 1919, but on that day the appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1934)36BOMLR881
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Broomfield in a patent action. The material facts are that in the year 1927, the plaintiff, who is a chemist, started a business in partnership with one Girdharlal, who is the brother of the defendant, the name of the firm being Jarivalla Shah & Co. The defendant was a clerk in the employment of the firm. The firm had an experimental branch which carried on business in the name of Jasco & Co., that firm being in charge of one Dr. Patel. In August, 1928, the plaintiff left for Europe, leaving Dr. Patel in charge of the chemistry department. In February, 1929, the plaintiff returned to Bombay, and shortly thereafter Dr. Patel left the employment of the firm. In or about October, 1929, a firm called Harak-chand Shivji & Co. approached the plaintiff and asked him whether he could introduce a system of producing white almonds by some process of bleaching the shells. On November 9, 1929, the plaintiff commenced exper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1966Bom70; (1965)67BOMLR234
Tambe, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, wherein the vires of the Gold Control Rules, contained in part XIIA of the Defence of India Rules, have been challenged. In the prayer clauses of the petition no doubt, validity of the entire rule were not challenged but only some of the rule were not mentioned. But the arguments advanced before us the were in respect of rules in general. If would not therefore be necessary to consider each rule separately.(2) The two petitioners before us are dealers in gold. They profess and parties Jain religion. The two petitioners carry onto business in the name and style of 'Messrs. Chandkumar Amichand & Co'. The principal business of the petitioner is in bullion. They buy and sell gold in course of their business. In their petition they say that the business carried on by the them is on a vast scale. Eleven persons are employed by them in the firm and the annual salary to the Rs. 20,000. The firm is also a registered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1954Bom243; (1954)56BOMLR99; ILR1954Bom311
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal from order and revisional application have been filed by the defendants against orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, in suit No. 60 of 1948. It appears that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants in regard to the transfer of house No. 2665 at Ahmednagar. A dispute arose between the parties as to the nature of this agreement. The plaintiff alleged that it was an agreement to sell the property, whereas according to the defendants they had merely agreed to mortgage the property. This dispute was referred by the parties to arbitration on January 25, 1948. The arbitrator then made his award.He was of the opinion that the agreement between the parties was one of mortgage and not of sale and on that footing the award purports to direct defendants Nos. 1 to 3 to pay the plaintiff Rs. 8,500 and interest at the rate mentioned in the award. This amount was made payable by six monthly instalments of Rs. 1,0...
Tag this Judgment!