Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing Keraba Dattu Borachate And Ors. vs Sheshashai And Vishnu Trust on 14 August, 1990

Hirabai Baburao Shidankar vs Rayat Shikshan Sanstha Satara on 19 September, 2008

The court, therefore, relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench in the matter of Kerba Dattu Borachate (supra), held that the tenant is entitled to be heard before issuance of the certificate. The matter was, therefore, remitted back to the Collector for reconsideration of the issue. The objection in respect of petitioner being guilty of latches in presenting the petition was raised.
Bombay High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - R M Borde - Full Document

Vijaya Irappa Kattimni vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 1 July, 2004

4. The Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid Notification granting exemption to the properties belonging to the Respondent No. 2 trust from the provisions of the Act solely on the ground that no order withdrawing the protection of the Act could have been made by the State Government without complying with the rules of natural justice and without granting an opportunity of hearing to the affected party i.e. Petitioner. Reliance is placed on the decision of this court in Keraba v. Shri Sheshashahi Trust reported in 1990 Mah L J 1183. On the other hand the State Government and the 2nd Respondent trust have contended that while granting exemption under Section 4 of the Act, it is not necessary to give hearing to the tenant as no vested right is affected by the exemption certificate. It is also pointed out that Section 4 of the Act is a piece of conditional legislation and no hearing is contemplated in exercise of power conferred under a conditional legislation.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A P Shah - Full Document

Mangalbhai Shankerbhai Patel Since ... vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 10 February, 2022

4.3 Learned advocate Mr.Purohit also relied upon two judgments of Bombay High Court which are annexed with the petition i.e. in the case of Yadu Dagadu Amrale (Deceased through his L RS) vs. Shriram Samarth Wasudev Swami Math Kanheri reported in 2005 LawSuit (Bom) 483 and in the case of Keraba Dattu Borachate vs. Sheshashai and Vishnu Trust reported in 1990 LawSuit (Bom) 244. Learned advocate Mr.Purohit submitted that the case of the present petitioner is required to be considered in light to these two judgments as the petitioners are in possession of the land since last more than 70 years and much prior to the tillers day, they are declared as 'permanent tenant' and they are in possession of the land and even cultivating the land today Page 9 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 15 20:59:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/2054/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2022 also and, therefore, as the exemption certificate issued under Section 88B of 'the Tenancy Act' in favour of Respondent No.3 without hearing the petitioners coupled with the fact that the trust is being mismanaged by the trustees, aforesaid certificate is required to be withdrawn / cancelled and, therefore, the impugned order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN / BA/ 244 of 2017 is required to be quashed and set aside and directions are requires to be issued to the Respondent No.1 to initiate proceedings for exercise of powers under Section 88D of 'the Tenancy Act'.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - N S Desai - Full Document

Bhimrao Chandru Patil And Ors. vs Balkrishna Dattatraya Joshi And Ors. on 18 September, 2001

28. On the above canvass of discussion, I am unable to persuade myself to accept the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Keraba Dattu Borachate (supra) needs reconsideration, rather, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maneksha Ardeshir Irani (supra) was rightly and properly read by the learned Division Bench of this Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - V C Daga - Full Document

M/S. S. Kumar Developers vs Bhimrao S/O Laxman Jadhao on 30 July, 2012

rate, in our opinion, when the requirement of notice and the mode of service on the parties concerned (here the tenants) are regulated by statutes setting up and regulating the functions of the Courts or Tribunals, the proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the provisions as laid down in the no notice Statute. A judicial decision rendered where there is to the necessary party is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. Such an order clearly violates the fundamental and basic rule of natural justice.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A B Chaudhari - Full Document

Dattu Hari Mali @ Dattu Rau Mali Since ... vs Peer Alli Darga Masjid (Powali Peer) ... on 22 June, 2004

According to him, the order issuing exemption certificate in favour of the respondents passed under Section 88-B of the Act, nevertheless, takes the colour of quasi judicial proceedings as can be discerned from the opinion recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Keraba Dattu Borachate and Ors. v. Shri Sheshashai and Vishnu Trust, .
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Hanuman P. Shingan & Ors vs Vithal Deo Karad Public Trust & Ors on 17 July, 2014

The sequitur to the said Judgment of the Division Bench in Kerba Dattu Borachate's case would be that the certificate granted under Section 88-B would be revisable and therefore the Revision Application would be 1 1990 MhLJ 1183 mmj 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2014 23:50:26 ::: wp-454-94-(8) maintainable against the grant of the certificate under Section 88-B. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The Revision Application is relegated back to the MRT for a denovo consideration of the same. Needless to state that all the contentions of the parties on merits are kept open for being urged before the MRT. On remand the MRT to decide the Revision Application expeditiously and latest by 31-3-2015. The Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs of the Petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R M Savant - Full Document
1