Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(3)BomCR1; 2005(2)MhLj921
shah a.p., j. 1. this is a petition filed under article 226 of the constitution in which the petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the shree siddhi vinayak ganpati temple trust (prabhadevi) act, 1980 (maharashtra act no. vi of 1981), hereinafter for brevity's sake called 'the act'. the petitioners are descendants of one sunder laxman patil who was the founder of shree siddhi vinayak ganpati temple, prabhadevi, mumbai. their main contention is that the act violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 25 and 26 of the constitution to manage their own affairs in the matters of religion. it is also contended that the act suffers from vice of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and violates article 14 of the constitution. the respondents to this petition are, firstly, shree siddhi vinayak ganpati temple trust, a public trust deemed to have been constituted under the act and the executive officer of the management committee of the said trust. the state of maharashtra, which exercises over all control over the first and second respondent is impleaded as third respondent. the fourth respondent is the official trustee who was the sole trustee of the temple by virtue of the order passed in suit no. 217 of 1932. the official trustee has handed over the possession of temple and its properties to the management committee constituted under the act. the petition has been contested by the respondents on the ground that the act does not, in any way, violate the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(69)ELT206(Bom)
s.h. kapadia, j.1. the facts mentioned hereinafter indicate a sorry state of affairs in matters in which huge stakes are involved and the revenue is lost on account of sheer negligence on the part of the government in not taking steps to explain the delay of 20 days for more than three years. even objections raised by the office of this court have not been removed for unduly long period despite the fact that government was directed as far back as 26-2-1990 by the supreme court to explain the delay. in the process, it is the revenue which has suffered. the facts indicative of the callousness are as follows :(a) on 16th june 1976, the central government issued a notification no. 198 of 1976 under central excises and salt act, 1944, giving substantial relief to various products including tyres and tubes. the notification was to remain in force till 31st march 1979.(b) by notification no. 141 of 1978 issued by the central government on 14th july 1978, the product in question, viz. tyres and tubes, came to be deleted.(c) in the circumstances, on 10th october 1978, miscellaneous petition no. 1424 of 1978 came to be filed by ceat tyres (the original petitioner) in this court, inter alia, challenging the validity of notification no. 141 of 1978.(d) by judgment and order dated 17th july 1987, the learned single judge of this court (suresh, j. as he then was) allowed miscellaneous petition no. 1424 of 1978 in favour of the original petitioner-company - ceat tyres of india.(e) certified .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR92
anoop v. mohta, j.1. presently, i am deciding only the issue whether the petition pertains to the single judge bench or division bench, with reference to the rule 18(3) of chapter xvii of the bombay high court, appellate side rules, 1960. (for short, 'the rules').2. the basic averments of the petitioner are as under:3. the petitioner is the present trustee of the 'pir bagdadi dargah dadar trust', duly registered under the regn. no. b/438 (bom) (for short, 'the said wakf'), situated at n.c. kelkar road, dadar (west), mumbai-400028. the petitioner is a sunni muslim, regularly offers prayer and worship at the dargah. the petitioner is integrally concerned with the functioning and welfare of the trust. the petitioner is one of four trustees of the wakf, governed by the provisions of the wakf act, 1995 (for short 'the act'), and the scheme framed by the bombay high court for administration thereof. the wakf is seized of the property, inter alia, consisting of a mosque and dargah. the mosque was built in or about the year 1888, and reconstructed thereafter in the year 1935, pursuant to the repairs sanctioned by the bombay high court, and further repaired in the year 1997.4. respondent no. 1 is the present chief executive officer, appointed under section 23 of the act, holding office on and from 16th august, 2008, is an authority constituted under the provisions of the act, having powers, inter-alia, to enquire into the mismanagement of any wakf in maharashtra and to take .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(3)ALLMR780; 2002(3)BomCR501; II(2002)DMC712
pratibha upasani, j.1. this chamber summons is taken out by the plaintiffs/decree holder, praying for appointment of court receiver, high court, bombay, who can take charge of the shop of the defendant situated on the ground floor of mubarak manzil, station road, bhayander, more particularly described in the schedule annexed and marked exhibit 'a' to the chamber summons, with all the movables lying therein with all powers under order xl, rule 1(d) of the code of civil procedure, and to sell the said shop with all the movables lying therein by public auction and to apply the net sale proceeds of the said property towards satisfaction of the decretal amount of rs. 2,00,000/- and interest thereon at 15% per annum from 1st february, 2000 till payment and costs of execution and of an incidental to all proceedings herein.2. few facts which are required to be stated are as follows :the plaintiff no. 1 rukhsana saifuddin kachwala is the wife of defendant saifuddin fakhruddin kachwala. both of them belong to the dawoodi bohra muslim community, and their marriage took place in mumbai on 24th december, 1985 as per shia ismail mustalian tayabi faith. plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 are the minor daughters born out of the said marriage. all along, the grievance of plaintiff no. 1 was that the defendant was not maintaining her and their minor children, though he was legally and morally bound to do so. repeatedly, the defendant also expressed his wish to divorce plaintiff no. 1. serious allegations .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(5)BomCR118; 1999CriLJ4822
orderb.h. marlapalle, j.1. petitioner - the revision applicant was married to respondent no. 1 sayeda masarat begum as per muslim religion on 2nd july 1994. out of the said wedlock, the respondent no. 2 son was born on 1st july 1995. the applicant husband gave divorce to respondent no. 1 on 24-10-1996 in the presence of two witnesses and the head kazi at aurangabad. it is contended by the applicant husband that the wife refused to take the document of divorce entered in the register. the wife filed an application under section 125 of the code of criminal procedure in the family court on 27-9-1996 and claimed maintenance for herself and for her son (petition no. e-319/96). the husband opposed the said claim both on merits as well as on the point of jurisdiction. after hearing both the parties, the learned judge of the family court on relying on a judgment of this court (d.b.) in the case of allabuksh karim shaikh v. noorjahan allabuksh shaikh, 1994(11) m.l.j. 1376 allowed the claim of the wife and son by the impugned judgment and order dated 28-12-1996. 2. shri gulam mustafa, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has raised, during the course of his arguments, the following preliminary points: i) the law laid down by this court in the case of allabuksh (supra) is not a good law and is a judgment per incurium as the earlier judgments of two different division benches in the case of faridabano shahabuddin kadri and another v. shahabuddin muzzaroddin kadri and another, : .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(2)BomCR533; [2006]129CompCas690(Bom); 2005(1)MhLj845; [2005]62SCL225(Bom)
s.u. kamdar, j.1. the present chamber summons is taken out under rule 591 of the bombay high court (original side) rules, 1980 inter alia seeking a reduction in the fees charged by the court receiver in accordance with the provisions thereof.2. some of the material facts of the present case briefly enumerated are as under:-3. a suit was filed on 20-11-1997 for recovery of aggregate amount of rs. 1,01,29,33,563/- and for various other reliefs. an interim application being notice of motion no. 3 of 1997 was moved. on 7-1-1998 this court appointed court receiver, high court, bombay as receiver in respect of the properties of the 1st respondent described in exhibits a-1 to a-5 of the plaint. the receiver was also appointed in respect of the goods, movables and bankers goods described in exhibits b-1 to b-7 with all powers under order xl rule 1 of the code of civil procedure of 1908. under the said order it was ordered that the defendant no. 1 should be appointed as agent of the court receiver in respect of the said properties. however, defendant no. 1 opted to act as agent only in respect the two running units at gotan and nimbahera in the state of rajasthan. in respect of other properties the defendant no. 1 declined to act as the agent of the court receiver.4. sometime in or about january, 1998, defendant no. 1 filed an application before the bifr under the provisions of the sick industrial companies (special provisions) act, 1985 being the case reference no. 22 of 1998. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1957Bom244; (1957)59BOMLR375; ILR1957Bom610
1. by this application, the applicant-landlord is challenging the valuation of her building made by the non-applicant for purposes of assessing the building to property tax.2. facts which are not in dispute in brief are: the applicant owns a house situated in the city of nagpur within the jurisdiction of the corporation of the city of nagpur. that house is divided into six units bearing municipal nos. 494, 494/1, 494/2, 494/3, 494/4 and 494/5. unit no. 494 is in the occupation of the applicant herself while the other units are rented out to the tenants. the annual valuation of unit no. 494 fixed for purposes of assessment of the property tax is rs. 130/, and the annual valuation of the other units is fixed on the basis of rents actually received by the applicant from her tenants after allowing deductions permissible under section 119(b) of the city of nagpur corporation act, 1948 (no. ii of 1950). by notice, dated 24-9-1954, the applicant was intimated of the proposed annual valuation of these units and the tax based thereon. the applicant filed her objection thereto, which was rejected by the objection officer by his order dated 10-8-1955. feeling aggrieved by the order of the objection officer, the applicant preferred an appeal before the district judge, nagpur. this appeal also failed and hence this' revision. 3. it is urged on behalf of the applicant that it is not open to the corporation to value the gross annual rent of the building on any other basis except those .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(4)BomCR196; (2002)4BOMLR196; 2002(3)MhLj210
v.g. palshikar, j. 1. the petitioners in both the petitions are same. the prayers are almost identical and, therefore, the petitions have been heard together and can be conveniently disposed of by common order. 2. the petitioners are residents of vinayak apartments situated in dhantoli area, near lokmat square, nagpur city. main grievance of the petitioners is that their fundamental right of leading peaceful and full life as contemplated by article 21 of the constitution of india, is seriously and continuously infringed by the respondents who have, according to the petitioners, commercialised the residential area and the apartments in which the petitioners are residing. according to the petitioners, this is an illegality, resulting in infringement of their fundamental rights and, therefore, appropriate writs under article 226 of the constitution are liable to issue. 3. it would be better to note prayers in writ petition no. 1119 of 1996 in extenso. '(a). issue a suitable writ, order or direction against the respondent no. 1 directing it to take effective measures so as to prevent the establishment of nursing home and clinic in the vinayak apartments, lokmat square, nagpur and do all acts necessary for preventing commercial being taken up in the residential premises; (a-1). issue a suitable writ, order or direction against the respondent no. 1 quashing certificate of registration granted by the corporation to the respondent no. 2 dated 23-5-1996 (annexure -e); (b). issue a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1986(2)BomCR92
v.a. mohta, j.1. in these six petitions the only point is---whether explanations i and ii to rule 10 introduced under the assessment, collection and refund of the cess (octroi duty) etc. (amendment) rules, 1984, are the ultra vires of the city of nagpur corporation act, 1948, ('the corporation act'). the petitioners are importers of foreign liquor in the city of nagpur for sale, consumption or use therein. they are holders of a bond licence under the provisions of the maharashtra foreign liquor (storage in bond) rules, 1964, ('the bond rules') framed under the bombay prohibition act, 1949 ('the prohibition act'). by that licence they are authorised to import the liquor and to store it in the authorised bond warehouses situated within the city without payment of the excise duty. the petitioners' contention is that excise duty on such goods is neither actually paid nor is the liability to pay incurred till their arrival at the entrance naka and hence the said duty cannot be legally added in terms of the corporation act while computing the value of the goods for the purposes of charging octroi duty and the explanations i and ii to rule 10 providing for such addition are void.2. excise duty on liquor for human consumption is chargeable by the state in view of entry 51 of list ii of the constitution. sections 105 and 106 of the prohibition act lay down the manner of levying the excise duty on liquor. bond rules provide for the grant of licence if desired to store foreign liquor in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1979Bom190
gadgil j.1. the only question that arises for our determination in this writ petition is as to whether the provisions of section 237 of the city of nagpur corporation act, and the bye-laws framed thereunder providing the necessity of having a licence for carrying on certain business such as hotel etc. stand repealed on account of the licensing provisions of such establishment under the prevention of food adulteration act and the rules made thereunder.2. petitioner no. 1 is an association of hotel owners at nagpur, while petitioners 2 to 5 are its members, respondent no. 1 is the corporation of city of nagpur, while the state of maharashtra is the second respondent. it is not in dispute that the petitioners 2 to 5 are carrying on their hotel business at nagpur. on 27-7-1959; certain bye-laws framed by the city of nagpur corporation (hereinafter referred to as the corporation) under section 415 (35) read with section 237 of the city of nagpur corporation act (hereinafter referred to as the corporation act) came into force. section 237 of the corporation act provides that the corporation may by bye-laws prohibit the manufacture, sale or preparation or exposure for sale, of any specified article of food or drink, in any place or premises not licensed by the corporation. the bye-laws so framed are at annexure-a to the petition. we will later on refer in details to these bye-laws but at this juncture it would be sufficient to state that the bye-laws as also the terms of the licence .....
Tag this Judgment!