Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the maharashtra vexatious litigation prevention act 1971 Page 1 of about 206 results (0.079 seconds)

May 06 2011 (HC)

Mr.Goolam E. Vahanvati Vs. Mr.Anil Gulabrai Gidwani

Court : Mumbai

..... lady to make oral submissions before us. we have heard the respondent who appears in person. 5 the maharashtra vexatious litigation (prevention) act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the act) has been enacted to prevent the institution or continuance of the vexatious proceedings in courts. section 2(1) of the act reads thus:- "2. (1) if, on an application made by the advocate general, the high ..... 1 this is a petition filed by the advocate general for the state of maharashtra under section 2(1) of the maharashtra vexatious litigation (prevention) act, 1971, praying that the respondent be declared as a vexatious litigant and that he be restrained by an order of this court from initiating any fresh proceedings against one smt.shanta mhatre (mentioned as "the victim lady" in ..... whether the respondent should be prevented from instituting any legal proceedings without the leave of this court as contemplated under section 2 of the act. merely because a party conducts himself in an improper manner during the course of any legal proceedings, it would not be proper to declare such a party as a "vexatious litigant" and to pass an order ..... not be invoked. the judges and courts have sufficient powers to tackle such conduct of a litigant and do not require the support of the act, which is aimed at preventing the harassment of the parties to the litigation and for protecting them from vexatious proceedings. (h) once the complaints lodged with the police, municipal authorities and the bar council are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 1990 (HC)

Arvind S. Bobde Vs. Santramdas Lilaram Bhojwani and Others

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1991Bom83; 1991(2)BomCR422

..... proceedings are commenced by the advocate-general under section 2(1) of the maharashtra vexatious litigation (prevention) act, 1971. the relief claimed is that the proceedings instituted by respondents 1 and 2 in civil, criminal and co-operative courts should be stayed and the respondents should be prevented from instituting any further proceedings. the facts set out in the application for seeking ..... strangers against haresh and the respondents. one wonders what prompted haresh to move advocate-general in the year 1989 to take action under the provisions of the maharashtra vexatious litigation (prevention) act, when the proceedings are instituted from the year 1984 onwards. we are unable to find from the petition filed by the advocate-general as to the ..... respondents is not sustain-able and in criminal cases the allegations are made without any evidence. on these averments, the applicant prays that the respondents should be prevented from instituting any proceedings in civil, criminal and cooperative court or any other tribunal and the proceedings already instituted should not be permitted to be prosecuted.3 ..... the relief are as follows:2. the advocate-general claims that one smt. madhubala sharma, advocate, instructed the advocate-general that the respondents are habitually and without any reasonable ground instituting vexatious proceedings in diverse courts .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 2003 (SC)

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Gopal Krishna Sengupta an ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2003SC3536; 2003(3)SCALE730; (2003)11SCC210

..... some other third party. the appellants also point out that the advocate general, state of maharashtra has filed a petition against the 1st respondent under the maharashtra vexatious litigation (prevention) act, 1971 and the 1st respondent had been declared a vexatious litigant.23. in these appeals we are concerned with the 3 orders which have been impugned. ..... and said, in so many words, that he was bent on teaching the appellant company a lesson. it was clear that the 1st respondent is acting out of vengeance. we must also record that mr. sibbai made, what we considered, to be very fair offers, including giving to 1st ..... that the appellant company had not returned the shares to him. also the appellants knew that a petition under section 111 of the companies act was pending in respect of this share. by transferring without notice to 1st respondent the appellants were in effect frustrating the proceedings before the ..... claimed that the shares were not returned to him. the appellants knew that 1st respondent had lodged a petition under section 111 of the companies act for transfer of the share to his name. the appellants knew that this petition was pending. they well knew that there was a dispute ..... wrote to the appellant pointing this out. 5. on 12th september, 1990 the 1st respondent lodged a petition, under section 111 of the companies act, before the company law board praying for rectification of the share register on the ground that the transfer in his name had been approved by .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 1997 (SC)

R.C. Patuck Vs. Fatima A. Kindasa and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1997SC2320; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)87; 1997CriLJ2756; 1997(2)Crimes102(SC); JT1997(5)SC468; 1997(4)SCALE58; (1997)5SCC334

..... but the said writ petition was dismissed. it appears that at the request of the petitioner the learned advocate general, bombay launched proceedings against the respondents under the maharashtra vexatious litigation (prevention) act, 1971 and the high court of bombay, after noticing that the respondents were illegally and forcibly occupying several premises and were instituting various proceedings, came to the conclusion that ..... no doubt the petitioner is an old lady of 75 years and there is some material to show that the respondents 1 and 2 have been indulging in similar litigations in bombay. but that in our opinion is not sufficient to pursuade us to exercise powers under article 142 of the constitution of india. the petitioner has adequate ..... the said proceedings started by the respondents were vexatious and that they should not be permitted to initiate fresh proceedings, except with the sanction of the advocate general. it is also stated that respondents made an application ..... the power under article 142 is at an entirely different level and of a different quality. prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot, ipso facto, act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under article 142. such prohibitions or limitations in the statutes might embody and reflect the scheme of a particular law, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 2009 (HC)

Prakash Ganpat Sawant Vs. Ravindra Babaji Satam and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR710; 2009(4)MhLj468

..... execution. eventually, by an order dated 25th november, 2003 this court allowed a petition instituted by the advocate general of the state against the appellant under section 2 of the maharashtra vexatious litigation (prevention) act, 1971. the order was confirmed in appeal by a division bench on 14th january, 2004. in a subsequent order dated 12th february, 2007, which arose out of an appeal lodged by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 2012 (HC)

Deepak Khosla Vs. Montreaux Resorts Pvt Ltd and Others

Court : Delhi

..... ., 189th report of the law commission on revision of court fee structure in which reference is made to frivolous and vexatious litigation. 27. the vexatious litigation (prevention) act, 1949 was unsuccessfully ..... restrict or to continue proceedings by those who have instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner. legal position in india 26. in india, two states- tamil nadu and maharashtra- have anti vexatious litigation acts, namely, anti vexatious litigation (prevention) act, 1949 and maharashtra vexatious litigation (prevention) act, 1971. the law commission of india in their 192nd report has recommended statutory enactment for prevention of vexatious litigation. the said report refers to the earlier report, i.e .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 2013 (HC)

Delhi High Court Bar Association and anr Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and ...

Court : Delhi

..... constitutionally acceptable mandate, to discourage vexatious litigation.884. in this background, the purpose of keeping out the vexatious litigation by enhancing court fee is not ..... 7 rule 1, sec 35a etc. which deal with ?frivolous litigation.? (ref:189. h report of law commission).883. it is noteworthy that law to prohibit and penalize vexatious litigation was enacted in the former state of madras as the madras vexatious litigation (prevention) act, 1949. post independence, in the state of maharashtra, the maharashtra vexatious litigation (prevention) act, 1971 was enacted. nothing prevents the delhi legislative assembly from examining this efficacious alternative, within a ..... enacted on the lines of the vexatious litigation (prevention) act, 1949 (madras act viii of 1949) to curb vexatious or frivolous litigation. in the judgment reported at air1965sc1827 prabhakar rao h. mawle v. state of a.p., applicability and constitutional validity of the same act was examined and upheld.880. significantly, the us supreme court in boddie v. connecticut, 401 us371(1971) also rejected the argument that charging such .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 2013 (HC)

Delhi High Court Bar Association and anr. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi an ...

Court : Delhi

..... constitutionally acceptable mandate, to discourage vexatious litigation.884. in this background, the purpose of keeping out the vexatious litigation by enhancing court fee is not ..... 7 rule 1, sec 35a etc. which deal with ?frivolous litigation.? (ref:189. h report of law commission).883. it is noteworthy that law to prohibit and penalize vexatious litigation was enacted in the former state of madras as the madras vexatious litigation (prevention) act, 1949. post independence, in the state of maharashtra, the maharashtra vexatious litigation (prevention) act, 1971 was enacted. nothing prevents the delhi legislative assembly from examining this efficacious alternative, within a ..... enacted on the lines of the vexatious litigation (prevention) act, 1949 (madras act viii of 1949) to curb vexatious or frivolous litigation. in the judgment reported at air1965sc1827 prabhakar rao h. mawle v. state of a.p., applicability and constitutional validity of the same act was examined and upheld.880. significantly, the us supreme court in boddie v. connecticut, 401 us371(1971) also rejected the argument that charging such .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 06 1980 (HC)

Sk. Bale S/O Fateh Mohammad Vs. HafizoddIn S/O Dadubhai and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1982(1)BomCR545

..... not possible for us to grant this prayer in these criminal applications. it is open to the petitioners to institute appropriate proceedings in this behalf under the provisions of the maharashtra vexatious litigation (prevention) act, 1971. we hope that if the complainant again files any such criminal complaints against the accused persons the competent court will minutely scrutinise the allegations made therein and thereafter will deal ..... had at one or the other time accepted the briefs against his so called adversaries and he feels that by making such advocates accused persons he would a position to prevent them from discharging their professional duties to which they own that allegiance.'9. shri a.v. savant, an advocate of this court who is petitioner in criminal application no. 70 ..... as well as from the bare reading of the complaint we are satisfied that the complaint instituted by the respondent no. 1 sk. bale was not only frivolous, false or vexatious but amounts to misuse of the process of the court. even if the facts stated in the complaint are accepted, still no offence is made out against the accused persons ..... is present in court. the learned public prosecutor has also supported the applications filed by the petitioners-accused and has contended that the complaint filed by the complainant is wholly vexatious and false and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. so far as the complainant is concerned to his only submitted that justice should be done in the matter.7. since the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 2009 (HC)

People's Council for Civil Rights Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2009CriLJ1949

..... of commission of the alleged offence employed in connection with the affairs of a state, of the state government:the purpose of the above section is to avoid vexatious litigation against public servant for the acts done in the discharge of their duties. sanction is a condition precedent in taking cognizance of an offence committed by a public servant while discharging official duties ..... apex court that for granting sanction, the granting authority need not give an opportunity for hearing to the accused as it is not contemplated under section 197. (see: state of maharashtra v. iswar piraji kalpatri and ors. : 1996crilj1127 and state of bihar and anr. v. p.p. sharma and anr. : 1991crilj1438 , but, we thought that for deciding the question whether sanction ..... obvious reasons. therefore, it is prayed that if sanction is necessary, this court should issue a writ of mandamus for giving sanction within a reasonable time as this court should prevent politicians or bureaucrats looting the poor citizens of the country and being the guardian of the constitution, this court shall rise to the occasion. when the case came up for ..... other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.section 19 of the p.c. act also requires sanction to prosecute public servants for offences punishable under that act. but it has been the well settled law that under the prevention of corruption act sanction is necessary only if the public, servant is being prosecuted while in service. in other words .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //