Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-10-1986
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
Decided on : Apr-04-1986
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
Decided on : Apr-15-1986
Reported in : AIR1986Bom373; 1987(3)BomCR119; 1986MhLJ582
Shah, J.1. In all these matters a common question of law as to the correct interpretation of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Bombay City (Inami and Special Tenures) Abolition and Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') arises for consideration. Before turning to the controversy raised in these matters the facts which in so far as they are material and are not disputed need to be stated.2. In Appeal No. 24 of 1980 appellants (original petitioners in Misc. petition No. 1566 0f 1975) are the Trustees of the Behramji nowroji gamadiaParsi Hunnar Shala Trust which is a public trust constituted by a Trust Deed dated 26th September, 1933, made by Bai Navajibai Nowroji Gamadia. The trust is duly registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1960. The objects of the trusts include (a) the foundation, maintained and support of a Technological school or schools and institutes, Hunnar Shala, workshops and industrial and vocational chasses ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-11-1986
Reported in : AIR1986Bom436; [1985(50)FLR411]
V.A. Mohta, J.1. By consent of parties we have formulated the following three points for consideration in this reference:(1) Whether the term 'the object of the Amending Act, 1972' in S. 10(1) of the Maharashta Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings ) Act, 1961 means the Amending Act as amended by Act No. 47 fo 1975?(2). whether s. 10(1) is attracted in respect of a transfer between 26-9-1970 and 2-10-1975 by a 'member of family unit' who separately held land prior to 26-9-1970?(3) Whether in case of a family unit in existence on 2-10-1975, S. 10(1) is attracted in respect of a transfer between 26-9-1970 and 2-10-1975 by a 'member of a family unit ' whose individual holding is below the ceiling limit but aggregate holding of the family unit is in excess of the ceiling limit on the commencement date?2. The basic factual background : A 'family unit' consisted of Madhukar Patil his wife Sau. Mandakini an a minor son Manoj all the three members of the family unit separately held, since be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-31-1986
Reported in : AIR1986Bom321
ORDERPendse, J.1. This petition involves an important question relating to Constitutional validity of Sections 21 and 22 read with Section 2(r) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')--in its application to an Undertaking connected with the publication of Newspaper. The petitioners challenge the validity of these provisions on the ground of violation of fundamental rights conferred under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.The petitioner No. 1 is a joint stock company governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at The Times of India Building, Bombay, while respondent No. 2 is a shareholder and Executive Director of petitioner No. 1. The 'Times of India' is published by petitioner No. 1 from New Delhi, Bombay and Ahmedabad and Hindi Newspaper 'Nav Bharat Times' is published from New Delhi and Bombay. Jansevak Karyalaya Limited of 8 Camac Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-03-1986
Reported in : 1987(1)BomCR130
G.F. Couto, J.1. The constitutional validity of section 4 of the Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962, as well as of sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, and of the Notification No. 110123/85-UTL issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, on 16th January, 1985 is being assailed in these two writ petitions filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. The grounds of challenge in both the writ petitions are the same, as same are the reliefs sought. Hence this common judgment.2. Section 3 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', provides that there shall be a Legislative Assembly for each Union territory and that the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of a Union territory to be filled by persons chosen by direct election shall be forty in the case of the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh and thirty in the case of any other Union territory. Its sub-s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-04-1986
Reported in : 1987(1)BomCR576
A.D. Tated, J.1. These four appeals arise from the judgement and order dated 16th July, 1979 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Cases Nos. 2, 13 and 21 of 1979. In the three Sessions Cases tried together and disposed of by a common judgement, seven accused were charged with the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302 read with section 149, section 302 read with section 34, section 353 read with section 34, section 332 read with section 149, section 332 read with section 34, section 337 read with section 149, section 337 read with section 34, section 323 read with section 149 and section 323 read with section 34 I.P.C. The Accused Nos. 1 to 6 were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The accused Nos. 1 to 6 were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The Accused No. 7 Sangappa Nigappa Malabadi was found guilty of the offence under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. and also of the offences under section 353 read...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-01-1986
Reported in : AIR1986Bom308; 1986(3)BomCR163; 1986MhLJ669
Puranik, J.1. Both these applications -- Misc. Civil Application No. 37 of 1986 and Misc. Civil Application No. 36 of 1986, for review of our judgments in First Appeals Nos. 40 of 1979 and 41 of 1979, respectively, decided on 21-11-1984, can be disposed of by a common judgment, inasmuch as the facts and circumstances in both the applications are identical.2. Brief facts leading to the present applications may be narrated as follows :--The present applicants are the landowners who were the respondents in the First Appeals mentioned above. By a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Principal Act'), issued on 11-2-1970, followed by Notification under Section 6 of the Principal Act dated 18-7-1970, 3.74 Acres of land out of Survey No. 83/1 and 3.21 acres of land out of Survey No. 98, both of village Mahadula, Tahsil and Dist. Nagpur, belonging to the applicants, were put under acquisition. The Additional Special Land Acquisition Off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-08-1986
Reported in : (1995)IIILLJ761Bom
Pendse, J. 1. Both these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment as the facts involved in the two petitions and so also the parties are common. For the sake of convenience, instead of referring the parties as petitioners or respondents, it would be advantageous to refer to them by their titles.The Trustees of Habib Esmail Memorial Trust are owners of a hotel known as 'Hotel Bombay International' situate in the building known as 'Dar-Ul-Habib' at the junction of Dinshaw Valeria Road and Netaji Subhash Road (Marine Drive), Bombay. By an agreement dated September ,24, 1968, the Trustees allowed Merchant Hotels Private Limited to conduct the hotel for a period of five years from August 1, 1968 with an option of renewal of further five years on the terms and conditions set out in the agreement. Merchant Hotels exercised the option of renewal and accordingly an agreement of renewal dated April 12,1976 was executed. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-22-1986
Reported in : (1986)88BOMLR649; [1990]68CompCas300(Bom)
1. The plaintiff is a debenture-holder in the Bombay Dyeing and Mfg Co. Ltd., the first defendant herein. He has filed the present suit on behalf of himself and other debenture-holders of the first and third series of debentures for a declaration that the first defendant company is not entitled to issue the proposed debentures pursuant to a letter of offer dated May 5, 1986, ranking pari passu with the debentures of the first, second and third series of debentures already issued by the first defendant company, and is not entitled to secure the said issue by a first mortgage on the fixed assets of the first defendant company. The plaintiff has prayed that the first defendant company should be permanently restrained from issuing any debentures pursuant to the letter of offer dated May 5, 1986. He has also prayed that the first defendant company should be ordered to repay all application monies received by the first defendant company in respect of the proposed new debenture issue. The pla...
Tag this Judgment!