One Mr. Kumbandas Kawalram settled two plots of land and created a Public Trust by a registered deed of settlement in 1963. Thereafter he died. After his death the then trustees of the said Trust and the legal heirs of the said Kumbhandas Kawalram executed a Deed of Rectification whereby they contended that the said Kumbhandas Kawalram and settled only one property and the two properties mentioned in the settlement deed was a mistake. The learned Dy.Charity Commissioner acted on the Deed of Rectification. In the year 1993, the then trustees preferred an Application before the Charity Commissioner against the decision of the Dy.Charity Commissioner. The learned Charity Commissioner set aside the Order of the Dy.Charity Commissioner and held that both the properties are Trust Property. In Appeal the City Civil Court refused to interfere with the Orders of the Charity Commissioner. In the First Appeal the High Court held that once a Trust is created it is irrevocable and the previous trustees or the legal heirs of the deceased had no right to change the documents against the wishes of the settler. However the Learned Judge said an enquiry under section 19 of the B.P.T. Act should be held. The legal heirs of the deceased preferred letters Patent Appeal which was not entertained by the Hon'ble High Court on the ground that the High Court has already exercised its Appellate Jurisdiction in the matter. The legal heirs thereafter knocked at the doors of the Supreme Court where the SLP was rejected. Thereafter, the Charity Commissioner held an enquiry under section 19 of the B.P.T.Act and disposed of the matter holding that both the properties were trust property. From City Civil Court to Supreme Court I appeared in the matter for the Trust.

Once a trust is created it is irrevocable and the trustees or the legal heirs of the deceased have no right to alter the document of Trust. The second legal point is that there is no time limit for preferring a revision before the Charity Commissioner for correcting a mistake.

The Trust got possession of both the plots of land.

The pay-scale prescribed in the said Act for a Chief Security Officer of Railway is that of a Dy.Inspector General of Police of a State. Western Railway refused to give the benefit of the abovesaid pay-scale to a Chief Security Officer on the ground that he was not deputed by the Police Department of a State. High Court held that he will have to be paid as per the pay-scale of a Dy. Inspector of Police of a State as prescribed in the Railway Establishment Code, notwithstanding that he was not deputed by the Police Department.

Railways will have to pay all the Chief Security Officers as per the pay-Scale prescribed in the Railway Establishment Code and the Western Railway's Order of not paying a Chief Security Officer as per the pay-scale prescribed in the Railway Establishment Code, would amount to discrimination.

A Deputy Assistant to the Inspector General of Police was served with an Order by the Government of Maharashtra whereby he was reverted to the post of an Office Superintendent and further declined to consider him for any future promotions. It was held by the High Court that the Order was discriminatory, arbitrary and bad in law and set aside the said Order of the Government of Maharashtra. Government preferred an Appeal from the above said Order of the High Court (single judge) and the said Appeal was dismissed by Division Bench. I appeared in the lower and Appellate Courts for the Deputy Assistant to the Inspector General of Police.

Refusal to consider an employee for future pro-motions infringes his fundamental right and amounts to discrimination.

The Dy. Assistant to the Inspector General of Police was restored to his original post and he was paid all the arrears of pay.

Husband's Petition in the High Court for divorce on the ground of impotency of the wife at the time of marriage and at the time of institution of the Petition. Petition against the wife was dismissed on the ground that the pleadings are contrary to the evidence on record.

Pleadings should not be contrary to the evidence on record.

Landlords filed a suit against his tenant for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he requires the premises for his bone-fide personal occupation. When the suit was pending MHADA acquired the premises. Thereafter, by Written Agreements entered into with the tenants ,the landlord agreed to convey the premises to the tenants on ownership basis and the tenants paid the full consideration to the landlord. Landlord failed to convey the property to the tenants. When the eviction suit came up for hearing the Learned Judge held that the landlord has no right, title and interest in the premises in view of the acquisition of the premises by MHADA. The learned Judge also held that the landlord has not proved his case that he requires the premises for his personal and bona fide requirement and dismissed the suit. The appellate Court held that the suit was not maintainable as there was no tenant - landlord relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in view of the acquisition of the premises by MHADA and that the trial Court erred in considering the personal and bona fide requirement of the landlord. Appeal Court dismissed the Appeal.

For maintaining a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay under the Bombay Rent Act, there should be landlord - tenant relationship between the parties.

Landlords filed suits for eviction of tenants from the premises on the ground that the tenant's rent was in arrears of rent and were not ready and willing to pay rent. The tenants proved that within one month from the receipt of the statutory demand notice from the landlord they tendered the rent by money order to the landlord as demanded by him in the notice and the landlord refused to accept the same. The suits were dismissed and it was held that the tenants were ready and willing to pay the rent and they are protected under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.

If the tenants tender the arrears of rent to the landlord within one month from the receipt of the statutory demand notice as demanded by the landlord - the tenants are protected and they cannot be evicted from the premises.

Landlords filed suits against tenants for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. The tenants filed an application for fixation of standard rent to the premises within one month from the receipt of the statutory demand notice and after getting the interim fixed by the Court, the tenants went on depositing the rent as ordered by the Court. Held that the tenants are ready and willing to pay the rent and that they are well protected under the provisions of Bombay Rent Act. Suits dismissed.

If the tenants file an application for fixation of standard rent and permitted increases and after getting the interim rent fixed by the Court, within one month from the date of receipt of the statutory demand notice from landlord and goes on depositing the rent in the Court as ordered by the Court the tenants are protected under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.

Landlords filed suits for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. Within one month from the receipt of the statutory notice the tenants sent cheques to the landlord in payment o the rent as demanded by the landlord. Landlords did not encash the cheques and contended that tendering rent by cheques is not legal tender. The Court held that payment of rent by cheques was lawful and dismissed the suit.

Tenant had given the premises on leave and licence basis. Licensee claimed to be tenant of the premises. Tenant accepted the licensee as his tenant and filed a suit for eviction on the grounds of personal and bonafide requirement. Suit decreed. Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal. High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and review Petition.

If personal and bonafide requirement of the premises is proved by the landlord he can get back possession of the premises.

Suit abated because the heirs of Defendants were not brought on record by the Plaintiff within a period of 3 months from the date of death of the Defendant.

If the legal heirs of the Defendants are not brought on record within a period of 3 months from the date of death of the Defendant the suit abates.

The suit against the Defendant abated.

A Deputy Director and his Assistant of the Textile Commissioner's office were accused of having accepted illegal gratification by the Central Bureau of Investigation for regularizing the power loom license of certain persons in Ichalcarangee after conspiring with their subordinate employees. The Dy.Director was acquitted for want of evidence and his assistant died during pendency of the case.

If there is no evidence on record the accused will be acquired.

The Deputy Director received all his arrears of salary and is also now getting his pension.