Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-12-1989
Reported in : 1990(1)BomCR561; (1990)92BOMLR70
..... patent from the 'judgment according to the award' under the arbitration act, 1940.39. the supreme court in a different context considered the applicability of clause 15 of the letters patent to appeals under the arbitration act, 1940 in the case of the union of india v. the mohindra supply co., reported in : [1962]3scr497 . under section 39 sub-section (2) of the arbitration act, 1940 'no second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section'. the supreme court held that section 39 sub-section ..... interest, delinquent interest on late payments of principal amount, compensatory damages for withholding this delinquent interest and awarding of costs. the arbitrators have given the following awards under these heads :1. regular interest wrong- 2 ..... , by its order dated 11th september, 1969 retrospectively revoked the exemption so granted.6. in february 1970 renusagar filled a writ petition being writ petition no. 179 of 1976 in the delhi high court challenging the ..... application. in the case of raja setrucharlu v. maharaja of jeypore and others, reported in a.i.r. 1919 p.c. 150 there was an order for sale of certain lands under the provisions of the code of civil procedure. the privy council held that ..... security. in other words, under the scheme of section 7 the law is weighted in favour of enforcement of an award. it is the party opposing enforcement which must establish one of the grounds set out in section 7 of the foreign awards (recognition and enforcement) act, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-21-1989
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!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-20-1989
Reported in : 1990(1)BomCR715; (1989)91BOMLR449
Sharad Manohar, J.1. What the appeal is about This appeal is filed by the petitioner/husband, whose petition for divorce filed against the respondent wife, was dismissed by the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court.Ground urged in the petition for divorce.2. The ground mentioned in the petition for divorce was mental cruelty on the part of the respondent/wife vis-a-vis the petitioner husband.Certain acts of cruelty were mentioned in the original petition for divorce. To the said petition, a written Statement was filed by the respondent wife. Certain statements were made by her in the said written Statement, which according to the petitioner/husband themselves constituted cruelty against her husband. Hence, the petition was amended by him, by the leave of the Court, and as per the amended petition he added an additional ground and a particulars relating to 'cruelty'. The statement made by the respondent/wife in her written statement was that the petitioner/husband had indulged in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-13-1989
Reported in : AIR1989Bom401; 1990(2)BomCR544; (1989)91BOMLR577
1. What the Appeal is about This is the Plaintiff's Appeal . He was the owner of a Truck. While crossing the level crossing of a Taloja, an engine of the Railway Knocked down the Truck and broke it into pieces. The plaintiff filed the suit for damages on the ground that the Railway Administration was Negligent in the matter of not locking the level crossing gate while the engine was moving on the rails. The suit was filed in form pauperis. The trail Court upheld his contention that there did exist negligence on the part of the Railway Administration as alleged by the plaintiff. Major protion of damages pleaded by the plaintiff was held established. All the same, the suit was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation.In effect, the learned Judge has held that the presentation of the pauper petition on the last day of the date of limitation should have been by the petitioner himself, that the presentation of the same by his Advocate and his verification of the same about 5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-17-1989
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
Decided on : Apr-21-1989
Reported in : 1989(3)BomCR81; (1991)ILLJ591Bom
H.D. Patel, J.1. It is rather a pity that three Working Journalists employed with the petitioner Nava Bharat, a Hindi daily of Nagpur, have yet to reap the benefit of an award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur, on 1st January, 1977. These unfortunate Working Journalist have not even received the statutory benefit that has become due and payable under the recommendations of the Working Journalists Wage Committee, which came into force from 29th May, 1959 and also the recommendations of the Wage Board for Working Journalists, which came into force from 1st July, 1967. The three Working Journalists have since ceased to be in employment for one reason or the other, and though one of them has put in long service, it is not possible even to compute the terminal benefits on the basis of last pay drawn. Though the demand initially embraced the claim for 17 working Journalists, the dispute is now restricted to three of them, others having settled their claim, may be out of frustration res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-06-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Bom262; 1989(3)BomCR332; (1989)91BOMLR315; 1990(1)MhLj421
ORDERChaudhari, J.1. These four petitions have been referred to a larger Bench for disposal by Sharad Manohar, J., by his referring Order dated 29th March 1989, since in the opinion of the learned Judge, the questions relating to the interpretation of Section 13A-1 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as 'Bombay Rent Act', for short), and, the right of a stranger to challenge partition in a joint Hindu family, are of great importance.2. The petitioner-original plaintiff filed 10 suits against 10 of his tenants (original defendants-respondents) who are in occupation of different rooms in the property bearing House No. 215 situate at Shukrawar Peth, Pune, for recovery of possession of the rooms on the ground of bona fide requirement for his personal use under S. 13A-1 of the Bombay Rent Act. Additionally, he sought eviction of one of the tenants viz., Khanderao Chintaman Panse (since deceased), whose heirs are the respondents in Peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-21-1989
Reported in : (1991)ILLJ591Bom
H.D. Patel, J.1. It is rather a pity that three Working Journalists employed with the petitioner Nava Bharat, a Hindi daily of Nagpur, have yet to reap the benefit of an award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur, on 1st January, 1977. These unfortunate Working Journalists have not even received the statutory benefit that has become due and payable under the recommendations of the Working Journalists Wage Committee, which came into force from 29th May, 1959 and also the recommendations of the Wage Board for Working Journalists, which came into force from 1st July, 1967. The three Working Journalists have since ceased to be in employment for one reason or the other, and though one of them has put in long service, it is not possible even to compute the terminal benefits on the basis of last pay drawn. Though the demand initially embraced the claim for 17 Working Journalists, the dispute is now restricted to three of them, others having settled their claim, may be out of frustration re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-01-1989
Reported in : 1990(2)BomCR108
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. It would be convenient to take up together for consideration these seventeen petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the challenge in all being to the authority of the respondents to recover excise duty on breakages caused in transit or in the Bonded Warehouse, by recourse to the circulars issued by respondent No. 2. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise on 19th April, 1980 and 6th April, 1981 (Annexures C and D in Writ Petition No. 1168 of 1981), and the difference in the supervision charges leviable under section 58-A of the Bombay Prohibition Act.2. Reference to the material allegations in Writ Petition No. 1168 of 1981 would suffice for examining the challenges raised, as the facts and questions of law arising in the other petitions are indentical.3. On April 19, 1980, the respondent No. 2, Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise issued a circular ( Annexure-C) modifying and revising the instruction contained in his earlier circular dated May 29, 1979 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-11-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Bom367; 1990(1)BomCR529; (1989)91BOMLR886
ORDERDharmadhikari, J.1. Deceased Bastiram Himatram Bhutada, father of respondent No. 1-plaintiff-landlord filed a Civil Suit No. 2292 of 1974 in the Court of the III Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune for eviction of the petitioner-defendant-tenant from the suit premises. One of the grounds for eviction was that the tenant sublet the suit premises to one Phutarmal Sitaram Mandora. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the tenant did sub-let the suit premises to Phularmal and thereby contravened the provisions of section 13(l)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act') and on that basis the decree for eviction came to be passed. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the tenant preferred an Appeal No. 202 of 1979 before the IV Extra Assistant Judge, Pune, who confirmed the finding that the tenant had unauthorisedly sub...
Tag this Judgment!