Court : Mumbai
CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION.................................................... 4 B. FACTS..................................................................... 6 C. MAINTAINABILITY...............................................12 D. LIMITATION..........................................................78 E. RELIEFS AND ORDER...........................................87 A. INTRODUCTION 1. The facts of the case are straightforward. The issues they raise, though narrow, are not. A very great deal of learning has been cited on both sides of the debate: some of the precedents are very old indeed. Counsel have argued that later decisions effectively upturn the older ones, even if they do not say so in so many words. There are two principal issues of law: first, limitation; and, second, whether the jurisdiction of a civil court is ousted in claim such as this because of the statutory provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 ( MPTA ) (Earlier the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Act 29 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. As per the order passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, this Appeal is placed before us for deciding following questions of law, which are framed by learned Single Judge of this Court [Coram : R.C. Chavan, J.], when the Appeal was placed before him for admission:- (I) Does Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act provide adequate protection to the parties from transfers pendent lite since such transferees are not required to be, or entitled as of right to be, impleaded as parties to the suit and cannot resist execution proceedings in view of provisions of Order XXI Rule 100 of the Code as amended by this Court? (II) Would plaintiffs' registering notices of their suits under Section 18 of the Indian Registration Act (though such registration may not be compulsory) not secure for plaintiffs more than what an injunction could secure since transferees, who purchase property, pendente lite in spite of such registration would be deemed to have n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners herein are the original defendant nos. 2 to 6, while the respondent nos. 1 to 13 are the original plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in their original capacity. The plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No. 16/2013, against petitioners and others for permanent and mandatory injunction. The subject matter of dispute is 16,168 square metres of land out of survey no. 60/2 (old matriz no. 786) of the property known as Um Terreno Oiteral Aforado situated at Sancoale. 3. The case made out in the plaint is that the larger area bearing matriz no. 786 situated at Sancoale, Dabolim Village, Mormugao, was belonging to Shri Marcal alias Joao Paulo Mesquita, who died intestate leaving behind his moiety holder, Smt. Joaquina Mesquita (defendant no. 1). Marcal Mesquita sold 3,932 square metres of land to Shri Domingos Dia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Whether the petitioner has ceased to be a citizen of India, on account of the petitioner voluntarily getting his birth registered in the Central Registry of Births at Lisbon, Portugal (Central Registry at Lisbon), is the question which falls for determination in this petition. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus: That the petitioner was born in Benaulim village, Salcete, Goa on 21/10/1959 and his birth is registered under entry no.3125 of the Registrar of Births maintained under Codigo Registro Civil , which was then in force in Goa, which was under a Portuguese Colonial Rule. The petitioner is a registered voter from Benaulim constituency at Serial No.445 of part 21 of electoral roll of 32, Benaulim constituency for the Legislative Assembly of State of Goa. The petitioner had contested the election to the Goa Legislative Assembly as a candidate of Goa Vikas Party (GVP) on 06/03/2012 and has been declared elected and is presently a member of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Writ Petition No.6794/2012 is filed against the judgment and order dated 4th of August, 2012, passed by the School Tribunal at Latur in Appeal No.14 of 2011. Petitioner was respondent no.3 in the Appeal before the School Tribunal. The aforesaid appeal was filed by present respondent no.3 challenging promotion of the present petitioner on the post of Headmaster with a consequential relief to promote him on the post of Headmaster from 1.1.2003 by setting aside the promotion of the present appellant as Headmaster. 3. It was the contention of the present respondent no.3 in the aforesaid appeal that the present appellant was junior to him and could not have been appointed on the post of Headmaster, superseding his claim. As against it, it was the contention of the present petitioner before the School Tribunal that the appeal filed by respondent no.3 was hopelessly barred by l...
Tag this Judgment!