Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1922)24BOMLR1167; 76Ind.Cas.433
Marten, J.1. This is a notice of motion by Captain Yanovsky the caveator asking for an order that the decree made in Suit No. 1 of 1922 by my brother Crump on April 25, 1922, may be Bet aside, and that the sale made in pursuance of the said decree be also set aside. The notice of motion states that I have granted an interim injunction against completion of the sale until further order of the Court. That statement is admittedly 'incorrect and should be struck out. All I did was to give leave to serve short notice of motion for last Saturday.2. The suit itself is a curious one. The application is also a curious one : and it bristles with legal points-points which are of interest from an historical aspect and also on the question of our Admiralty Jurisdiction in this Court. It also carries with it points of interest to all of us in this High Court of Bombay, viz, that the various matters arising in the exercise of the Court's extensive jurisdiction should be carried out in a way which is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR598; 2008LC(BOM)309
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3701/2007, Shri Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5100/2007, Shri Gordey, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5855/2007, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1 State, Shri Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India with Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition Nos. 3701/2007 and 5855/2007 and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 5100/2007, and Shri Arun Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3701/2007, states that petitioners do not want to press prayer Clauses (2) and (3) in the writ petition. In view of the said statement of learned Counsel Shri Kilor, Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the inter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR408; 2009(111)BomLR1612; 2009(4)MhLj779
Naresh H. Patil, J.1. The appellants filed return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961, as amended upto 1975, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act'). According to the appellants, they possess six agricultural lands i.e. Survey Nos. 163,149,147,17,5 and 164 at village Mangrool, Taluka Pathri, District Parbhani comprising of 161 acres 6 Gunthas. During enquiry conducted by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (for short, 'SLDT'), under the old Ceiling Act, out of total area of 65 acres 9 gunthas from Survey Nos. 5,164 and 163 was already declared as surplus. After deduction of 65 acres and 9 gunthas, the holding of the appellants was of 95 acres 37 gunthas. Out of the said lands an area of 9 acres 39 gunthas was acquired for Jayakwadi project. 2 acres of land from land Survey No. 5 was acquired for Road and an area of 17 gunthas was Pot-Kharaba. Four acres of land vested in Nala. The appellants, therefore, submit that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1949CriLJ492
ORDER1. The applicant, Haridas Damaji Awade, is a final LL. B. student in the Univer-sity College of Law, Nagpur. He is an Activ& worker and one of the chief organizers of the Samata Sainik Dal.2. In exercise of the powers vested under Section 16, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, the Provincial Government, by a notification dated 10th February 1948, declared the said Dal as an unlawful association. By another notification it specified in a schedule the places which are used for the purpose of. unlawful association. Nagpur district was one of the places so mentioned.3. After I&'said Dal was declared unlawful, the applicant was detained under an order of the District Magistrate, Nagpur, under Section 2(2), Central Provinces and Berar Public Safety Act 1947. The applicant is now detained under an order of detention passed by the Provincial Government on 9th March 1948 under Section 3(l)(a) of the Act. The detention is for a period of six months from 9th March 1948. The Provin-cial Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR1106; (1959)IILLJ599Bom
Datar, J.(1) The appellant before us was originally a Sanitary Inspector in the Municipal Committee of Nagpur. A departmental enquiry was started against him and on the 12th of December 1949 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The Enquiry Officer held that the appellant was guilty of the charges for which the enquiry had been started but recommended that as there were extenuating circumstances, only a warning be given to the appellant by way of punishment. the officer in charge of the Municipal Committee, however, took a different view on the question of punishment to be awarded. To the appellant and accordingly passed an order services. It was necessary under the rules that this order of the Officer in Charge had to be approved of by the Board of Revenue. It appears that the Board of Revenue also approved of this order and the same was communicated to the appellant on the 27th of April 1951.(2) The appellant thereafter approached this Court by a special application under the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR828; 2004(1)BomCR451; (2003)IIILLJ268Bom; 2003(4)MhLj752
C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge, dated July 11, 2001 in Writ Petition No. 1111 of 1997. By the said order, the learned single Judge confirmed the order passed by a Member of the Industrial Court, Thane, dated 24th October, 1996 in Complaint (ULP) No. 519 of 1996.2. Certain facts are not in dispute. On or about June 30, 1992, the Appellant Company declared a Voluntary Retirement Scheme ('first VRS' for short) for its employees, which was accepted by 337 employees. On March 16, 1994, the Appellant declared second VRS which was in the nature of Memorandum of Understanding ('MoU') ('second VRS' for short). That was accepted by 179 employees. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 who had accepted first VRS of 1992 filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, Thane on July 20, 1994, alleging that the Company had committed unfair labour practice under item Nos. 5, 9 and 10 of the Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003LC662(Bombay); 2004(1)MhLj18
1. The petition, makes a complaint that the respondents have arbitrarily and illegally withheld the amount of refund in the sum of Rs. 1,35,39,000/- due and payable to the petitioners which is in defiance of the order of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (West Zonal Bench) at Mumbai ('Tribunal' for short) and, constitutes breach of principles of judicial discipline which require that the orders of the higher authorities are required to be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities.The Facts :2. The facts of the case in short are that the petitioners, a partnership firm imported various consignments of rough marble blocks. Two adverse adjudication orders; dated 31st August 2001 and 13th September 2001; came to be passed by the Commissioner of Customs, the respondent No.4 against the petitioners imposing redemption fine of Rs. 1.01 crore and Rs. 42,84,000/- with penalty in the sum of Rs. 29.40 lakh and Rs. 4.00 lakh on 16 consignments plus 1 consignment r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(1)BomCR96; (2002)1BOMLR256; (2002)ILLJ436Bom
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The fate of this Letters Patent Appeal is dependent on the answer to the question whether under the Will dated 2-12-1944 executed by Sitaram Sadashiv Bapat in respect of the immovable properties owned and held by him, his wife Bhagirathibai became the absolute owner or only got limited interest.2. The testator Sitaram Sadashiv Bapat who died on 24-12-1944 during his life-time executed Will on 2-12-1944. As the principal question involved is in respect of the construction of said Clauses of Will, we deem it proper to reproduce the English translation of the relevant clauses of the said Will but before we do that we may note that the original Will executed by Sitaram Sadashiv Bapat is in Modi script. The Marathi version thereof was got duly registered from the District Registrar of Sangli which is on the file 'D' in the Special Civil Suit No. 39 of 1973. As there was some disagreement amongst the learned counsel for parties about the English translation of the said Will,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(5)BomCR138; (2008)110BOMLR2167; LC2008(2)434; 2008(38)PTC435(Bom)
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The judgment was reserved on 12.2.2008. By a preceipe dated 29.3.2008 the Defendants sought to tender an additional affidavit to bring on record further documents and to raise a new defence. This application was heard by me on 3.6.2008. I have rejected the application for reasons furnished later in this judgment. 2. The Plaintiff has sought an injunction restraining the Defendants from making of, using, selling or distributing tamper proof locks/seals that fall within the scope of the claims of the Plaintiff's patent bearing No. 162675 and patent of addition No. 178879 so as to infringe the same and for delivery of for destruction any material infringing the said patents. The Plaintiff has also sought damages. Defendant No. 2 carries on business as the sole proprietor in the firm name and style of Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3 is the former employee of the Plaintiff who has joined Defendant No. 1/2 to assist him in carrying on his business. According to the Plain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(4)ALLMR718; 2001(4)BomCR103; [2001(89)FLR1015]; (2001)IILLJ273Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. In this petition the petitioner employers of the school teachers are denying the claim of gratuity to their retired teachers on the ground that they were not 'the employees' as defined under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as they were not doing 'any skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work .......'2. There is no dispute over the facts. The petitioners are a recognised unaided primary/secondary School established in the year 1963 and managed by the Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It is an admitted fact that the respondents school teachers were in employment of the school as shown below:(i) Smt. Sudha Desai June 14, 1971 to March 20, 1997 (ii) Smt. Shanta Ranganathan November 12, 1979 to February 27, 1997 (iii) Smt. Aleyammo John June June 9, 1969 to May 31, 1997 (iv) Shri B.M. Deshpande January 28, 1975 to December 20, 1998 3. There is also no dispute that their services were meritorious an...
Tag this Judgment!