Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-24-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)ALLMR515; 1999(1)BomCR693; (1999)1BOMLR488; 1999(1)MhLj667
..... also under the u.p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act, 1951 where it was held that the word 'occupant' signifies occupancy and enjoyment. mediate possession (except where the immediate possessor holds on behalf of the mediate possessor) is of no consequence. it was also held that 'occupation' to be basis of a right must be of a person who claims to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-22-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)ALLMR831; 1998(3)BomCR201
..... aggrieved by such contravention, may make a complaint in writing. (a) to such conciliation officer or board, and the conciliation officer or board shall take such complaint into account in mediating in, and promoting the settlement of such industrial dispute; and (b) to such arbitrator, labour court, tribunal or national tribunal and on receipt of such complaint, the arbitrator, labour court ..... of section 33-a would indicate that an aggrieved employee is provided with the quick, expeditious and summary remedy of making complaint in writing to conciliation officer or board for mediating in the industrial dispute or to arbitrator, labour court, tribunal or national tribunal, as the case may be, for adjudication of the dispute where the employer has contravened the provisions .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-23-1998
Reported in : [1998(79)FLR367]; (1998)IILLJ1177Bom
..... of conciliation. the division bench noted that before amendment to the id act and also after amendment and observed that the conciliation officer can take into account such complaint in mediating in, and promoting the settlement of, such industrial dispute and that the remedy under section 33-a as it then stood and under section 33-a(b) as it now .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-05-1998
Reported in : AIR1999Bom22; 1998(4)ALLMR3; 1998(4)BomCR490; (1999)1BOMLR650; 1999(1)MhLj381
ordera.v. savant, j.1. heard both the learned counsel, shri sali for the petitioner and shri mengane for respondent no. 2, none appears for respondent no. 1, though served.2. this petition demonstrates the highly objectionable manner in which the claim of an accident victim was sought to be defeated by the respondents, obviously acting in collusion with some revenue officer, as will be evident from the facts set out below. what has been challenged in this petition is the order dated 8th february 1989 passed by the motor accident claims tribunal, solapur, (for short, 'tribunal') below exhibit-23 in m.a.c.p. darkhast no. 11 of 1986. the relevant facts are as under :-3. the petitioner was working as a clerk in the postal department at the kasba peth post office in pune. on 4th october 1978, he went to his friend shelar at chinchwad, near pune. while returning, at about 1 a.m. on 5th october 1978 the auto-rickshaw in which he was travelling was hit by a truck belonging to the first respondent shankarappa shindgi. the truck bearing no mhu. 5266 was driven by its driver gangappa nagappa sanganwar. the truck was insured with the united india fire & general insurance company limited. as a result of the accident, the petitioner was thrown on the road and suffered severe injuries. he was removed to the k.e.m. hospital at pune straightaway from the place of impact. after a detailed treatment he was discharged on the 14th of march, 1979. he has lost his faculty of speech as a result of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-15-1998
Reported in : 1998(4)ALLMR686; 1998(4)BomCR511; 1998(2)MhLj845
orderb.h. marlapalle, j.1. writ petition no. 799/90 arises out of the order dated 14-12-1989 passed by the maharashtra revenue tribunal, aurangabad setting aside its own order dated 24-6-1989 in revision no. 96/b/1988/p and also setting aside the orders passed by the additional tahsildar, sub-division selu and deputy collector, selu. the land admeasuring about 23 acres 38 gunthas in survey no. 590 situated at parbhani belonged to one shri prabhakarrao rajaram taklikar and the petitioner entered into an agreement on 3-5-1957 with the said prabhakarrao for cultivation of the said land admeasuring 23 acres 38 gunthas along with the well in survey no. 590 on tenancy basis for a consideration of rs. 3,000/-. subsequently the said land was cultivated by the petitioner and his elder brother raghorao @ raghoo. both the brothers continued to cultivate the said land jointly and in accordance with the provisions of section 38 of the hyderabad tenancy agricultural lands act, 1950 they became the joint owners of the said property and certificate dated 27-3-1962 in form no. 13 (under rule no. 22) came to be issued in favour of both the brothers.2. it is the contention of the petitioner that raghoji was his elder brother and after the land was vested in favour of both the brothers jointly in terms of the order passed by tahsildar on 25-3-1962 in pursuance of the provisions of section 38 of the act, both the brothers became joint owners of the said land and pahanipatrak as well as 7/12 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-18-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)ALLMR20; 1999(1)BomCR420
orderm.b. shah, c.j.1. heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. the present petition has been filed, in public interest, seeking protection of the interest of several thousands of depositors and investors who have invested their funds in collective investment schemes and other schemes floated by plantation companies promising unreasonably high returns on their investments. one of the prayers which is sought in the petition is that the state government be directed to forthwith promulgate an investor protection act as was done by the state governments of tamil nadu and goa.3. it is the contention of the petitioners that there are approximately3,599 plantation companies which have succeeded in attracting depositsand/or funds to the extent of approximately 25,000 crores. the petitionershave furnished instances of at least 5 plantation companies which, afterpromising unconscionably high returns, and after collecting large amount offunds from the depositors, are either not holding plots of land or have issuedpost-dated cheques which have bounced or have diverted a large portion of therevenue generated into non-agricultural use and unproductive activities.4. respondent no.1, viz., securities and exchange board of india (s.e.b.i.), has set up an advisory committee chaired by dr. s.k. dave, ex-chairman of unit trust of india, in order to draft regulations with regard to plantation companies and submit its report. report is already submitted.5. it is also one of the grievances of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-14-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)ALLMR44; 1999(1)BomCR278; 1999(1)MhLj235
ordera.p. shah, j.1. rule. respondent waives service. by consent petition is placed for final hearing.2. this writ petition is directed against the order passed by the maharashtra revenue tribunal reviewing its earlier order passed in revision and remanding the matter to the agricultural lands tribunal, maval, for de novo enquiry under section 32-g of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1948.3. the facts briefly are that the petitioners are owners of the lands bearing survey nos. 35/a-3 and 57/1-b admeasuring 5 acres 35 gunthas and 35 gunthas respectively situated at village khadakale, tahsil haveli, district pune. it is an admitted position that the name of deceased dagadu kotulkar, i.e., father of the respondent was shown as tenant prior to 1st april, 1957 in 7/12 extract. an enquiry was held under section 32-g of the act and in the said enquiry, the sale was declared ineffective as the tenant failed to remain present before the agricultural lands tribunal, ('a.l.t.' for short). thereafter an enquiry was held under section 32-p wherein possession of deceased landlord, i.e., genu laxman shinde was confirmed vide order dated 6th december, 1964. a mutation entry to that effect was duly made in the village record. nearly 24 years after the orders were passed under section 32-g and 32-p, the respondent as constituted attorney of deceased dagadu kotulkar filed appeal no. 64 of 1987 before the sub-divisional officer, haveli, challenging the orders passed by the a.l.t. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-22-1998
Reported in : 2000(1)BomCR300
ordera.d. mane, j.1. this petition is filed on 24-7-1991 by the legal heirs of one devidas. the facts narrated in the petition are that the petitioner's father was holding inam land survey no. 171 admeasuring 11 acres and 2 gunthas situated at pingali, district beed. it is stated that the hyderabad tenancy and agricultural lands act came into existence and all tenants cultivating the agricultural lands on or before 1950 were held as protected tenants and were declared as statutory owners under section 38-e. according to the petitioner, there was however, no tenant on the disputed land even after the enforcement of the tenancy act and the inamdar continued to be the owner and possessor of the disputed land. it may however, be stated that this possession has been seriously disputed by the respondents relying upon certain documents to show that under section 38-e of the act, the land was regranted to the tenant respondents. 2. the petitioners however, state that the respondent no. 3 was inducted on the land as tenant as per the pahanipatrak in the year, 1957-58. therefore, the petitioners' father started proceedings under section 17 for determination of proper rent and under section 32(2) read with section 44 for termination of tenancy. the notices under section 32(2) was also issued and inquiry under section 38-e came to be started by the tenancy authorities. it is however, stated that hyderabad inams and cash grants act, 1954 came into force in 1960 and all inam lands were .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-15-1998
Reported in : 1998(4)ALLMR694; 1999(1)BomCR785; 1999(3)MhLj42
ordera. b. palkar, j.1. these two petitions pertaining to the same property in respect of similar dispute between the parties were heard together by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and are being disposed of by common judgment.2. the litigation between parties is pending since long and there have been number of proceedings which came up to this court and in order to appreciate the real controversy, it is necessary to have a bird's eye view at the history of the litigation 3. the land in dispute is survey no. 42, admeasuring 8 acres and 21 gunthas (3 hectares 55 ares), situated at village mehun, taluka edlabad, district jalgaon which has been given block no. 116 after implementation of the consolidation scheme.4. hari vithoba choudhari was the original owner of the land who transferred it in favour of dattatraya kulkarni by a registered document dated 16th april, 1941, styled as a conditional sale deed and also placed dattatraya kulkarni in possession of the aforesaid property. dattatraya kulkarni inducted one chavdas totaram as tenant in the said property some time in 1947-48, i.e. precisely before coming into force of the bombay tenancy andagricultural lands act, 1948 (b.t. & a.l. act). in respect of this tenancy, an entry was made in the revenue record bearing mutation entry no. 736 on 11-3-1950 and the said entry continued to be in the revenue record thereafter. although the document is styled as conditional sale deed, it is obvious that it was a mortgage .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-20-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)ALLMR415; 1998(3)BomCR680
orderb.h. marlapalle, j.1. one ukha hiralal mali was a tenant in respect of land admeasuring 5 hectares 13 ares located in gat no. 33/1, s. no, 21/2 of village lon, tq. amalner. district jalgaon and the original owner of the said land was shri zaverchand laxmichand. it appears that ukha hiralal mali entered into an agreement of sale with the present respondent in respect of the said land for a consideration of rs. 6,000/-. the tenant received the consideration and receipt to that effect as well as possession of the land by the vendee was issued. it is pertinent to note that the agreement of sale was registered and the possession of the subject land was handed over to respondent no. 1. ukha hiralal mali filed r.c.s. no. 96/71 before the civil judge (j.d.) amalner and claimed possession of the said land from respondent no. 1. the said suit came to be dismissed by order dated 20-12-1973. in the meanwhile, when the suit was pending certificate of ownership under section 32-g of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the tenancy act for short) came to be issued in favour of ukha hiralal on 11-6-1971. r.c.s. no. 96/71 was dismissed solely on the ground that the possession of respondent no. 1 was - protected under section 53-a of the transfer of property act. the plaintiff therefore, filed civil appeal no. 13/74 which was dismissed on 23-2-1977 and the order passed by the trial court was confirmed. 2. ukha hiralal mali died on 5-8-1980 and .....Tag this Judgment!