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 : 1988(1)BomCR400
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. The Appeal from Order No. 7 of 1981 and Civil Revision Application No. 151 of 1981 arise out of the same order passed by the learned District Judge, Buldana in the cases arising our of the proceedings under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act') and, therefore, can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment.2. Briefly, the facts are that there is a Sailani Shaha Baba Dargah (for short 'Dargah') at Pimpalgaon Sarai, Tahsil Chikhli, District Buldana registered as a public trust under the provisions of the Act. There was a complaint made to the Charity-Commissioner by Sheikh Bashir and five others who are shown as respondents 1 to 6 in Miscellaneous Judicial case No. 8 of 1978 in respect of the offerings made to the tomb of Sailani Baba. According to them the respondents in appeal from Order No. 7 of 1981 who collected the offerings made at the Dargah particularly during the period of Urs did not account for the same and in fact they misappropr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)88BOMLR587; 1986MhLJ931
S.K. Desai, J.1. In this appeal, on behalf of the respondents, a preliminary point as to maintainability of the appeal has been taken and we are of opinion that we must dispose of the preliminary point at the outset, since, in our opinion, it has to be negatived by reason of a clear direct decision of the Supreme Court on the very point. In order to appreciate the preliminary point and the observations of the Supreme Court, a few relevant facts may be stated:2. Arbitration Suit No. 2921 of 1985 was instituted by the plaintiffs under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the plaintiffs sought an order for filing the arbitration agreement between the parties contained in Clause 20 of the agreement dated September 12, 1981. The plaintiffs also claimed further orders including one for reference to a sole arbitrator. The plaintiffs also filed Arbitration Petition No. 136 of 1985 for interim reliefs. By a common judgment and order dated May 2, 1986, a single Judge of this Court made a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)89BOMLR356; 1987MhLJ503
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated October 13, 1986 passed by the learned Single Judge (Shah, J.) in suit No. 1844 of 1984 filed on the Original Side of this Court. The learned Single Judge after recording his findings on all the three preliminary issues held that the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of statutory under notice Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Co-operative Societies Act'). But, however in regard to his finding relating to the jurisdiction (issue No. 3) the learned single Judge felt that his view in that behalf is in conflict with view taken by another single Judge in Pravin R. Gaglani v. Beharilal Beniprasad : AIR1978Bom255 . He therefore referred the said issue for decision to a larger Bench and directed the office to place and papers of this suit before the learned Chief Justice for appropriate orders under Rule 28 of the High Court Origin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1988(4)BomCR545
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Ceiling Act'). On a return being filed by the petitioner under section 12 of the Ceiling Act, a ceiling case was opened in his case. The field survey No 1/1, area 18 acres 11 gunthas of village Bramhi (Bk) was held by him as a tenant. The petitioner submitted before the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal (for short, 'the S.L.D.T.' that he had lost possession of the said field in the tenancy proceedings for resumption of land, initiated by the respondents 2 to 4 landlords. It is, however, not clear from the order of the learned S.L.D.T. whether the said field was included in the total holding of the petitioner or not. But, since the S.L.D.T. has ultimately held that there is no surplus land belonging to the petitioner it would appear that this field survey No. 1/1 is excluded by it from the total holding of the petitioner.2. ...
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 : 1988(3)BomCR1; (1988)90BOMLR292
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition arises out of proceedings instituted by the respondents for possession of the premises tenanted by the petitioner. The premises are situated at Mahabaleshwar in Satara District. The respondents are the landlords of the petitioner. They served upon the petitioner a notice on 23rd of May, 1979 under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act , demanding from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 3,675/- which was the rent due from 1st August, 1977 to 30th of April, 1979. Since there was no compliance with the demand made by the notice, the respondent filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 1980, in the Court of Civil (Judge, Junior Division), at Wai.2. The petitioner resisted the suit by contending that if proper account was taken of the amounts due from the parties to each other, there would be no arrears of rent as contended by the respondents. The petitioner also c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1989(3)BomCR377; (1988)90BOMLR594
I.G. Shah, J.1. This appeal was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Lentin and Ashok Agarwal, JJ. The two learned Judges differed and, therefore, they referred the matter to the learned Chief Justice for being placed before the third Judge. The learned Chief Justice for being placed before the third Judge. The learned Chief Justice placed this appeal before me for hearing and disposal.2. The two main points that arise for consideration are these. (1) Whether the authorities were justified in refusing certification to the film, 'Pati Parmeshwar' on the ground that it violates Guideline 2(iv-a) of the Guidelines issued by the Central Government for certification of films. (2) Whether Guideline 2(iv-a) is beyond the scope of section 5-B(2) of Cinematograph Act, 1952, and ultra vires Article 19 of the Constitution.3. The facts giving rise to this appeal in a nut-shell are as under. The second respondent one S.K. Nayyar is the producer of cinematograph film called 'Pati Parmeshwar'. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1990Bom140; 1989(2)BomCR526
ORDERDharmadhikari, J.1. This reference under S. 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been made by Shri Mani, Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay for seeking opinion of this Court as to whether the provisions of S. 2(9)(f) and S. 2(9)(f1) of the Bombay. Money Lenders Act, 1946 are ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India.2. The plaintiff Bhanushankar Jatashankar Bhatt filed a suit against the defendantsKamal Tara Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Madan Tarachand Samant. The claim in the suit is based on a bill of exchange dt. 1st Dec., 1983 for a sum of Rs. 20,000 drawn by the defendant 1 and alleged to have been accepted by the defendant 2. Defendant 1 did not appear in the suit. Defendant 2 filed his affidvit in reply dt. 20th April, 1987 to the summons for judgment in which he prayed for grant of unconditional leave to defend the suit. Since the defendant 1 did not contest the suit an ex parte decree came to be passed against him and unconditional leave is granted to the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1990Bom348
ORDERPatel, J.1. The appellants are the owners of Survey No. 67 area 9.76 acres, Survey No. 68 area 10.37 acres, Survey No. 69 area 11.45 acres and Survey No. 70 area 8.16 acres situated at Mouza Chikhali, Tahsil and District Nagpur. These lands were acquired for Eastern Industrial Area Street Scheme by the Nagpur Improvement Trust. The notification regarding framing of the said scheme was published on 30-6-1962 under S. 39 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I.T. Act' for the sake of brevity). This notification under S. 39 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act corresponds to the notification under sub-section (1) of S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A final noiification under S. 45 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act was also issued, Which notification corresponds to S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. The Land Acquisition Officer adopted the land rate of Rs. 1800/- per acre for survey No. 70 and the land rate of Rs. 3000/- per acre f...
Tag this Judgment!