//
archives

Bombay High Court

This tag is associated with 74 posts

Environment Protection Act, 1986. – Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) were enacted (w.e.f.19th February, 1991) – The guidelines,-Hotels, Beach Resorts and Beach Bungalows in Goa – orders to demolish as the buildings were situated with in 500 meters from HTL permitted – High court allowed the Writ Pil – Apex court held that admittedly the all the buildings constructed before the commencement of the Act and guidelines which are not gazetted no force of law – all are prospective – and as such the apex court held that Violation of Article 21 on account of alleged environmental violation cannot be subjectively and individually determined when parameters of permissible/impermissible conduct are required to be legislatively or statutorily determined under Sections 3 and 6 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 which has been so done by bringing into force the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification w.e.f. 19th February, 1991.In view of the foregoing discussion, the orders impugned in the writ petitions filed by the appellants cannot be sustained. Consequently, the said orders as well as each of the orders dated 13th July, 2000 passed by the High Court of Bombay will have to be set aside which we hereby do while allowing the appeals.=CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3434-3435 OF 2001 GULF GOANS HOTELS CO. LTD. & ANR. . ..APPELLANTS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS = 2014 – Sept. Month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41945

 Environment  Protection Act, 1986. – Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) were enacted  (w.e.f.19th February, 1991) – The   guidelines,-Hotels,  Beach  Resorts  and  Beach Bungalows in Goa – orders to demolish as the buildings were situated with in 500 meters from HTL permitted – High court allowed the Writ Pil – Apex court held that admittedly the all the buildings constructed before the commencement of the … Continue reading

PIL- using public funds for advertising in a manner so as to project the personalities, parties or particular governments and for laying down binding guidelines – DAVP guidelines not suitable to deal with situation – Apex court appointed a committee to that effect = Common Cause …. Petitioner (s) Versus Union of India …. Respondent(s)= 2014 ( April.Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41450

PIL- using  public  funds  for  advertising  in  a manner  so  as  to  project  the  personalities,   parties   or   particular governments and for laying down binding guidelines – DAVP guidelines not suitable to deal with situation – Apex court appointed a committee to that effect =  These petitions have  been  brought  as  a  class  action  by  certain  registered societies viz., Common Cause  and … Continue reading

Bail – transfer of case – Lower court granted bail in high scam – High court cancelled the bail – Apex court confirmed the high court order and transferred the case to other district = Gulabrao Baburao Deokar … Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents = published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41116

Bail – transfer of case – Lower court  granted bail in high scam – High court cancelled the bail – Apex court confirmed the high court order and transferred the case to other district =  The High Court order cancelled the  bail  granted  to the appellant herein in Crime  No.13/2006  registered  at  the  City  Police Station, Jalgaon. The … Continue reading

Sec.377 of I.P.C. – constitutionally valid – Unnatural offences – Same sex marriage – Bombay high court declared the sec.377 as unconstitutional – Apex court set aside the orders of Bombay high court – and held that sec.377 is a valid one – marriage between same sex is an offence under sec.377 still – Notwithstanding this verdict, the competent legislature shall be free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Section 377 IPC from the statute book or amend the same as per the suggestion made by the Attorney General. = Suresh Kumar Koushal and another … Appellants versus NAZ Foundation and others … Respondents = published in/ Cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41070

Sec.377 of I.P.C. – constitutionally valid – Unnatural offences – Same sex marriage –     Bombay high court declared the sec.377 as unconstitutional – Apex court set aside the orders of Bombay high court – and held that  sec.377 is a valid one – marriage between same sex is an offence under sec.377 still … Continue reading

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, ‘the Corporation’) – Regulation 16(a), (b), (n) read with Regulation 64(b) read with section 46 of the M.R.T.P. Act. – Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) for grant of environmental clearance for change of use of land purchased in industrial zone for purpose of raising commercial and residential buildings – Corporation granted permission despite of objections – D.B. High court set aside the orders of Mumbai corporation and also directed to consider afresh taking in to consideration of security threats etc. – Apex court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the high court orders = Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. … Appellant versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others … Respondents = Published in / cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41064

Municipal  Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, ‘the Corporation’)  – Regulation     16(a), (b),  (n)  read  with  Regulation  64(b)  read  with section 46 of the M.R.T.P. Act. – Maharashtra  Pollution Control Board (MPCB) for grant of environmental clearance for change of use of land purchased in industrial zone for purpose of raising commercial and residential buildings – Corporation granted permission despite of objections – D.B. High … Continue reading

Sec.101,102 of Evidence Act – Sec.100 of C.P.C = Suit for Declaration of title and consequential reliefs = Goa – Portuguese civil code – Suit for declaration & possession & cancellation of document = with out producing any documentary proof in respect of title – no suit be decreed on vague admission -Sec.101,102 – burden of proof & onus of proof – both are distinct – former never changes – later changes from time to time from one shoulder to other’s shoulder – first plaintiff has to prove his title – then only other things will be considered = sec.100 C.P.C. – when decree was passed on erroneous law and fact , high court can interfere in second appeal – High court rightly set aside the decree and judgement of lower courts = Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. … Appellants Vs. K.V.P. Shastri (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. … Respondents = Published in / Cited in /Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41061

Sec.101,102 of Evidence Act – Sec.100 of C.P.C = Suit for Declaration of title and consequential reliefs = Goa – Portuguese civil code – Suit for declaration & possession & cancellation of document = with out producing any documentary proof in respect of title – no suit be decreed on vague admission -Sec.101,102 – burden of proof & onus … Continue reading

Interim orders in suits filed by purchasers against developer – Single Judge of High Court directing not to register any agreement in respect of the flat of appellant, which was not subject matter of the suit – Notion of Motion by appellant – Interim order recalled – Appeals – Division Bench of High Court staying operation of order of Single Judge and directing the money deposited by plaintiff and appellant with developer to the credit of one of the suits and to be invested in FD – Held: Division Bench of High Court while deciding the Notice of Motion has exceeded its power and jurisdiction in commenting on the conduct of the appellant stating that she approached the court on the basis of false and fabricated documents – When the main suits are pending, particularly, the appellant is a stranger in the pending suits, such observation is not warranted and, as such, is deleted – The developer having deposited the money as directed by High Court, it safeguards the interests of plaintiff – Trial Court directed to decide the suits on merit – Administration of justice – Strictures. = Vasanti Bhat …. Appellant(s) Versus Premlata A Agarwal & Anr. Etc. …. Respondent(s) = Published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/helddis.aspx

INTERIM ORDERS: Interim orders in suits filed by purchasers against developer – Single Judge of High Court directing not to register any agreement in respect of the flat of appellant, which was not subject matter of the suit – Notion of Motion by appellant – Interim order recalled – Appeals – Division Bench of High … Continue reading

Industrial Disputes Act sec. 25F,25FF sec.25N and Section 17B of I.D. Act – Estopel – State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Appellants Versus Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli & Ors. … Respondents = http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40894

Industrial Disputes Act sec. 25F,25FF  sec.25N and Section 17B of I.D. Act – Estopel – Already     decided case attained finality – and same was applied with some suitable modifications = Retrenchment of labours temporary having serice of more than 10 years of service with out sufficient notice and with out payment of damages on the trasfer … Continue reading

Arbitration Act – No Arbitration clause = Vishnu (dead) by L.Rs. …Appellant versus State of Maharashtra and others …Respondents published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40853

Arbitration Act – No Arbitration  clause =     Whether Clause 30  of  B-1  Agreements  entered  into  between  the         Government of Maharashtra and the appellant is in  the  nature  of  an         arbitration clause is the question which arises for  consideration  in         this appeal … Continue reading

Production of Documents for inspection can be filed under sec. 27 of Arbitration and conciliation Act = scope of Section 27, and the circumstances in which the Arbitral Tribunal or a party before the Arbitral Tribunal can apply to the court for assistance in taking evidence.= a notice to the advocate on record of the appellant on 17.3.2007, calling upon them to give inspection and to produce the following documents before the learned Arbitrator:- (a) All sales tax returns filed by the appellant with the sales tax authorities for the assessment years 1995-1996 to 2001-2002. (b) All sales tax assessment orders passed with regard to the appellant for the above-mentioned period, and all appellate orders, if any passed in any appellate proceedings arising out of the same. (c) The objection, if any, filed by the appellants against the Notice in Form 40, and proposed order at pages 123 & 124 of Volume VI of the documents filed in the arbitration, the order, if any, passed thereon, and the appellate proceedings, if any, therein. (d) The letter dated 26th May 2000 mentioned in the letter at page 32 of Volume III of the documents filed in the arbitration.- The advocate of the appellant vide his reply dated 21.3.2008, protested and objected to the production of these documents, since according to the appellant the same were being sought at a late stage when the proceeding had reached the stage of cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent No.1. – Inasmuch as the appellant declined to give inspection / and produce the document as sought for, the respondent No. 1 made an application on 26.3.2007 before the learned Arbitrator, and in paragraph No. 5 thereof, sought a direction to produce the documents mentioned at Sl. Nos.(a) to (c) in the notice dated 17.3.2007. The learned Arbitrator by her order dated 27.3.2007 allowed the application only to the extent of the assessment orders relating to the period 1995-1996 to 2001-2002 and the appellate orders mentioned in paragraph 5(b). The prayer for producing the sales tax returns mentioned in paragraph 5(a) was not entertained. Similarly, the prayer to produce the documents as sought in paragraph 5(c) was not entertained. = It is a settled principle of law that the words used in a statute are to be read as they are used, to the extent possible, to ascertain the meaning thereof. Both these provisions contained a bar only against the Government officers from producing the documents mentioned therein. There is no bar therein against a party to produce any such document. In Tulsiram Sanganaria and Another v. Srimati Anni Rai and Ors. reported in 1971 (1) SCC 284, a bench of three Judges of this Court interpreted an identical provision in Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and held that the said provision created a bar on the production of the documents mentioned therein by the officials and other servants of the Income Tax Department, and made it obligatory on them to treat as confidential the records and documents mentioned therein, but the assessee or his representative-in-interest could produce assessment orders as evidence, and such evidence was admissible. Thus, if a claim is to be decided on the basis of an order of assessment, the claimant as well cannot be denied the right to seek a direction to the party concerned to produce the assessment order. It is this very prayer which has been allowed by the earlier order dated 27.3.2007 passed by the then Arbitrator, and also by the subsequent order dated 16.9.2011 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, and in our view rightly so. There is no substance in the second objection as well. 25. There is one more aspect which we must note, i.e., when the first respondent made an application for production of the assessment orders, the defence taken by the appellant in their affidavit dated 16.9.2011 was that those documents were confidential documents, and could not be directed to be produced. It was not stated at that time that the said documents were not available. It is ten months thereafter, that when the second affidavit was filed in the High Court, that the respondent for the first time contended that the said documents were not available. This was clearly an after thought, and this attitude of the Respondent in a way justified the earlier order permitting an application under Section 27 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax of the concerned area was also joined as respondent so that he could be directed to produce the required documents. However, he reported that those documents were old records, and were destroyed. The learned Single Judge did not pass any order against the respondent No.2 to produce the documents, as sought. However, the learned Single Judge rightly allowed the petition as against the appellant in terms of prayer clause ‘A’, directing the appellant to produce the documents which were sought by the respondent no. 1. 26. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40827         REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8426 OF 2013 (@ out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 28418/2012 ) Delta Distilleries Limited … Petitioner   Versus   United Spirits Limited & Anr. … Respondents   J U D G E M … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,464,042 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,893 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
Advertisements