Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. This appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Amendment Act, 2015) (with effect from 23 October 2015) by the Appellant/Original (Purchaser) Petitioner, as the learned Single Judge rejected Section 9 application filed by the Petitioner thereby refused to grant any protective order/injunction for short against the Respondent (Seller) from assigning, selling, transferring, alienating and/or creating third party rights, title or interest in respect of the two barges or parting with possession thereof in favour of any other person so described in Exhibit M to the petition. 2. The issue of jurisdiction, as stated to be raised specifically, however, not decided and dealt with on 25 February 2016 when Section 9 application was rejected finally. The Respondent applied for Speaking to Minutes. By order dated 2 March 2016, it is recorded as under: 5. Hence, the following line to be added in paragraph 6 in second last li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1994Bom80; 1994(3)BomCR139; (1993)95BOMLR302
1. This is an appeal preferred by original Respondents to challenge Order dated January 27th 1993 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No. 45 of 1993. By the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge made the petition absolute and pending arbitration, restrained the Appellants herein from encashing or receiving any amount under the Bank Guarantees mentioned in Exhibit 'F' thereto. The facts which gave rise to the filing of the said Petition are as follows :--In or about the year 1987, the Appellants had floated a tender notice inviting tenders in respect of construction of an underground tunnel which was part of the Bombay III Water Supply Project. Along with their letter dated 16th May J9S8, the Respondents had submitted their tender for construction of underground tunnel between Dr. E. Moses Road and Ruparel College, Bombay, a part of the said project which was accepted by the Appellants and a contract bearing No. 2769-IN/1750-IN/W/20 (for short 'the said Contrac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1927Bom278; (1927)29BOMLR498
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The first and principal question of the five questions submitted to this Full Bench is : 'Whether a suit brought by a mortgagee of land to enforce his mortgage by sale is a 'suit for land' within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.' It will be noticed that the question has been deliberately confined to enforcing a mortgage by sale. That is the relief asked for in the present suit, and that is the relief ordinarily asked for on the Original Side. Indeed it was even said during the hearing that many Judges in this Court have refused to grant foreclosure at all. And personally I do not remember any case in which I was asked to pass a foreclosure decree, although I must have had hundreds of mortgage suits before me at various times during the last ten years.2. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent runs as follows :-And we do further ordain that the, said High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom365; (1952)54BOMLR330
Chagla, C.J.(1) This appeal raises a very interesting and important question as to the jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Justice Shah took the view that this Court had no jurisdiction to try the plaintiff's suit, and on that ground he dismissed it. It is from that order of dismissal that the plaintiff has come in appeal before us.(2) A preliminary observation may be not out of place as to the manner in which issues as to jurisdiction should be tried. Mr. M. V. Desai has made a grievance that the learned Judge took the view that an issue with regard to jurisdiction is always an issue of law and must be tried as a preliminary issue. I do not think that this grievance is fully justified. As I read the judgment, the learned Judge has tried this issue as an issue of law because, for the purpose of his decision, he has assumed that all the facts averred by the plaintiff in his plaint are proved, and, therefore, this issue has been tried on a demurrer.Now, it is open to a Court to take the view...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(5)ALLMR195; 2007(5)BomCR694; (2007)109BOMLR1701; 2008(1)MhLj205
M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of respective parties.2. Letters patent appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel for respective parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.3. This letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 13-03-2007 in Writ Petition No. 755/2007, whereby the learned Single Judge of this High Court summarily dismissed the writ petition by confirming the Judgment of learned Member, Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai in Appeal No. 350/1994 as well as the Judgment of the Cooperative Court, Jalgaon in Dispute No. 134/1989 directing present appellants to surrender peaceful possession of the suit property to the respondent No. 1 and payment of past mesne profits to the extent of Rs. 18,000/-.4. The subject matter in dispute is plot No. 8-B (bungalow No. 48), situated in respondent No. 2 Society at Nandurbar. Present respondent No. 1 is the Chairman of respondent No. 2 Societ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 13th March, 2012, directed the office to place the papers before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. The Division Bench opined that the following question ought to be referred for consideration to a larger bench. Whether an appeal under the provisions of clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a civil suit in an application filed in that civil suit because of the provisions of section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is maintainable or not ? The learned Chief Justice constituted this Full Bench and referred the above question to it. 2. We have held that an appeal against an order in an application under section 8 is not maintainable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Our conclusion is based on principle and on authority. It is based on our interpretation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the framework in which it now sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(3)ALLMR31; 2004(4)MhLj1
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J. 1. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed by the appellant (original defendant No. 2) seeks to challenge the order dated 22nd January, 2004 passed by a learned Single Judge on Notice of Motion No. 68 of 2002 filed by the original plaintiff who is respondent No. 1 herein. Suit No. 29 of 2002 is filed by respondent No. 1 as a dispossessed person under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to recover possession of the immovable property concerned. In that Suit, he had taken out the above Notice of Motion wherein prayer (a) was that pending disposal of the Suit, the High Court Receiver be appointed the Receiver of the property being front side Ground Floor Bungalow admeasuring about 1500 sq. feet situated at Gupta Bhavan Nos. 166, 167, N.A. No. 18-B, Gundavali Village, Andheri (East) Mumbai ('the said property' for short) and for a further direction to the Receiver to take possession of the said property and to put the plaintiff in possession the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR896; 2009(111)BomLR479
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. Being aggrieved by the order, below Exh. 4, dated 18.6.2007 in Civil Suit No. 2/2007 (Garware Wall Ropes Limited.v. A.I. Chopra and Anr.), rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff, the present appeal was filed.3. This appeal was decided by this Court by judgment and order dated 19.12.2007. In Civil Appeal No. 4762/2008 decided on 1.8.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India set aside the said judgment and remitted these appellate proceedings for fresh disposal in accordance with law and also indicated the questions to be decided. Thereafter, respondent-original defendant No. 1 in the instant appeal filed Civil Application No. 6230/2008, which came to be allowed by this Court under order dated 28.8.2008. That application came to be allowed and the documents proposed to be filed with the said application were taken on record. Learned Counsel for both the parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom186; (1960)62BOMLR995
1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, on 29th April, 1958 rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff appellant in suit No. 2957 of 1954 in the City Civil Court at Bombay, holding that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. The plaintiff-appellant is a fisherman and at the material time was the owner of a country craft 'Pandavi'. He filed the above suit against the defendant company as owners of a cargo boat 'Jalmanjari' claiming a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as and by way of damages alleged to have been suffered by him on account of a collision at a distance of about 10 miles from Worli Sea Shore between the defendant company's said cargo boat 'Jalmanjari' and the plaintiff's country craft 'Pandavi', alleged to have occurred due to the negligence of the defendant company, its servants and agents on the said boat resulting in the breaking in two parts and sinking of the plaintiffs country craft.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom479; (1952)54BOMLR609; ILR1953Bom549; [1952]22ITR150(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.[1] This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. This matter came before us on an earlier occasion and we held that under Section 66A(2), Income-tax Act it was not a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. It is now sought to be contended by Sir Jamshedji Kanga that he has a right of appeal under Article 133(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution inasmuch as the amount or value of the subject-matter is not less than RS. 20,000, or in the alternative, that the judgment, decree or final order involves directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property of not less than Rs. 20,000.[2] In our opinion, it is clear that neither Article 133(1)(a) nor (b) can apply to a judgment given by this Court on a reference made under the Income-tax Act. It is clear that as far as Article 133(1)(a) is concerned, it requires that the amount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the Court of first instance and still in dispute on appeal was and is not l...
Tag this Judgment!