Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-14-2001
Reported in : 2001(4)ALLMR143; 2001(3)BomCR652
..... the arbitral tribunal remains within the limits of its jurisdiction: (v) to minimise the supervisory role of courts in the arbitral process; (vi) to permit an arbitral tribunal to use mediation, conciliation, or other procedures during the arbitral proceedings to encourage settlement of disputes; (vii) to provide that every final arbitral award is enforced in the same manner as if it .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-12-2001
Reported in : 2002(2)BomCR694
..... put in possession of the suit flat before his parting with the amount of rs. 12.35 lakhs. that amount was to be deposited with shri venkateshwaran who was the mediator. he was to pay that amount to the defendant only after both the parties would intimate him in writing about delivery of possession. thus the plaintiff's money would have ..... shri venkateshwaran. the terms of the agreement do not indicate that the amount of rs. 15,000/- also was to be deposited with shri venkateshwaran who was acting as a mediator between the parties. the plaintiff has averred in para 3 of the plaint that he handed over a cheque of rs. 15,000/- to the common advocate of the parties ..... purchase the suit flat. it is also an admitted fact that advocate venkateshwaran is the common friend of both the parties and that the transaction was entered into through his mediation. it is further admitted that as per the term of the agreement, the defendant immediately applied to the society to grant its no objection to the transaction and accept the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-27-2001
Reported in : 2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152
..... mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. the purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. the purpose of relegating the parties first to the lok adalat is obviously .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-24-2001
..... was a mere broker and, therefore, he was nota party to the contravention committed in regard to the imports. the proceedings do not bear on the claim that he was mediating between the seller and the buyer. the proceedings also show that in association with shri deepak ganatra he had paid out large sums of money. considering the fact that he ..... jayesh tanna were in the same line of business and were related persons. shri jayesh tanna were in the same line of business and were related persons. shri jayesh tanna mediated between m/s. pil and m/s. taneja exports. no consideration was paid for the sale by m/s. taneja exports (who were in fact non existence) but jayesh tanna .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-31-2001
Reported in : (2002)3BOMLR201; 110CompCas408(Bom); [2001(91)FLR1194]; 2002(2)MhLj405
..... rs. 17,62,5007- payable to the 19 of the employees who had accepted the vrs but were not paid their dues. this figure is worked out before the learned mediator, shri justice d.r. dhanuka. the company has no objection if the said amount is allowed to be withdrawn by the said employees and i have accordingly ordered. this amount .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-27-2001
Reported in : 2002(2)BomCR287; 2002(4)MhLj728
r.m.s. khandeparkar, j. 1. the petition arises from the judgment and order dated 31st december 1999 passed by the additional commissioner, nashik allowing the revision application filed by the respondents nos. i and 2 against the order of the additional collector, jalgaon dated 19th january 1999. the additional collector, jalgaon in rts appeal no. 56/98, by the said order of 19th january 1999, had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the sub divisional officer bhusawal dated 6th april 1998. the said sub-divisional officer, bhusawal by his order dated 6th april 1998 in rts revision no. 47/97 had rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner against the mutation of entry no. 1319 and other mutation entries carried out by the talathi of village rajore on 27th july 1995 pursuant to application stated to have been filed by one onkar patil.2. it is the case of the petitioner that onkar pandurang patil was her husband and he had purchased agriculture land being gut no. 205 admeasuring 46 area in the village of rajore by a deed dated 5th february 1979 for a consideration of rs. 9000/-. pursuant to the purchase of the property, mutation of entry, in record of rights was carried out under no. 1086 in favour of onkar patil in relation to the said property. it is further contention of the petitioner that the said property was self acquired property of onkar patil as it was purchased out of his own income and it was not forming part of the joint .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-29-2001
Reported in : 2002(1)ALLMR461; 2001(4)BomCR826; (2001)4BOMLR627; 2001(4)MhLj671
d.y. chandrachud, j.1. the first petitioner claims to be the owner of two plots of land at manori bearing survey no. 267 and 268. the lands are stated to admeasure approximately 18 acres and 6 gunthas and are separated by a piece of land bearing survey-no. 260. the claim of the petitioners is that these lands were the ancestral lands of the first petitioner. the claim is that, under a deedof conveyance dated 25th february, 1899, the lands came to be purchased by mr. premchand roychand from mirjeebhai manekjee vasanwala. according to the petitioners, these lands were thereafter bequeathed by premchand roychand to his son kikabhai premchand, from whom in turn the lands devolved upon his brother maneklal. maneklal is stated to have bequeathed these properties to his wife tara premchand. the first petitioner is the daughter-in-law of tara premchand, while the second petitioner is the daughter of the first petitioner. in support of the plea of being lawful owners of the lands bearing survey nos. 267 and 268, the petitioners have relied upon a compilation of documents, inter alia, consisting of a copy of the indenture dated 25th february, 1899 and the probates of the wills of maneklal premchand and tarabai premchand granted by this court in exercise of the testamentary and intestate jurisdiction. now it is also common ground that the revenue records in respect of the disputed survey numbers duly reflected the names of kikabhai and maneklal and of shri kishor maneklal as the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-06-2001
Reported in : 2002(1)ALLMR542; 2002(2)BomCR184
r.m.s. khandeparkar, j.1. heard the learned advocates for the parties. perused the records.2. the dispute in the petition relates to the agricultural land bearing survey no. 105/3 now gat no. 163 situated in the village nandurkheda, taluka raver, district jalgaon. the land in question belongs to govind vinayak matkari, shankar ramkrishna dahale and nilkanth s/o ramchandra dahale. since 1951 the land was cultivated by one mukund pawar as the tenant thereof on payment of annual rent of rs. 28/-. mukund pawar expired in the year, 1956 leaving behind him five sons namely, narayan, pandu, dattu, chintaman and shankar (petitioner herein) as his heirs and consequently, all the sons being major in age at the time of the death of mukund, inherited the tenancy rights in the said land in equal shares. after the death of mukund, one sayabai w/o bhaurao awahane, mother of the respondents herein purchased the suit land by a registered sale deed dated 29th october, 1956 and on the same day, she was put in possession of the suit land. sayabai continued to possess the suit land till her death which occurred on 16th october, 1980 and, thereafter, the suit land was possessed by the respondents as the lawful heirs of sayabai. by notice dated 18th august, 1992 the petitioner called upon the respondents to restore the possession of the suit land to the petitioner in terms of section 32(1-b) of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1948 (herein after called as 'the said act') and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-09-2001
Reported in : 2002(1)ALLMR560; 2001(4)BomCR609; (2002)1BOMLR531; 2002(1)MhLj45
b.h. marlapalle, j.1. this petition, filed under article 226 of the constitution, raises an important question of law regarding the rights of the beneficiary of land under acquisition under the land acquisition act, 1984 (l. a. act, for short) when the state government invokes its powers under section 48(1) of the l. a. act.factual matrix 2. the petitioner market committee came to be established at aurangabad initially in the year 1934 under the hyderabad markets act as applicable to the erstwhile hyderabad state and with the enactment of the maharashtra agricultural crops marketing (regulation) act, 1963 (for short, the said act) came to be known as a market committee within meaning of section 11 of the said act. it used to function in the market area of aurangabad city and its jurisdiction was extended to aurangabad as well as khultabad talukas. with the rapid development of aurangabad city and the surroundingareas, a proposal for construction of new market yard of the aurangabad city was sent to the collector on 9th february, 1983 pursuant to the resolution dated 6th january, 1983 and the collector, in turn forwarded the said proposal to the special land acquisition officer on 23rd february, 1983 for further action. the market committee had sought acquisition of about 248 acres and 38 gunthas (98 hectares) of land from the jadhavwadi, harsul areas which were part of the new development plan made applicable to the aurangabad city under section 128 of the maharashtra .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-19-2001
Reported in : AIR2001Bom369; 2001(3)ALLMR290; 2001(4)BomCR187; (2001)3BOMLR436
s.a. bobde, j.1. the only question in this second appeal is whether the document dated 12.12.1968 executed by the deceased-husband of the respondent is a mortgage by conditional sale or whether it is a sale coupled with an agreement to reconvey.2. this second appeal is preferred by the defendants against whom both the courts below have passed a decree for redemption in respect of the suit property which consists of two parts of land admeasuring 10 gunthas and 14 gunthas each. the courts below have also directed the respondent to pay a sum of rs. 1,200/- which was the original amount for which the document was executed. in brief the transaction as reflected in the deed is as follows :-the respondent's late husband sopanrao executed a document dated 12.12.1968 that he had taken an amount of rs. 1,200/- from the appellant for development of his land. under that document, which is admittedly a registered document, he further sold, al belt conditionally, the said land. he also handed over possession of the suit land. the document in question further states that the term for which the transfer will operate will be a period of five years. that if during that period, the amount taken by the respondent is returned by him, the appellant will execute a reconveyance in favour of the respondent, failing which the same in favour of the appellant shall be confirmed. both the learned counsel agree that this is how the document reads as translated.3. the document was executed by the .....Tag this Judgment!