MANOHAR HIRU NAIK PARULEKAR Vs. AGRAWAL MINERALS (GOA) PVT LTD
LAWS(BOM)-1972-2-18
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on February 18,1972

Manohar Hiru Naik Parulekar Appellant
VERSUS
Agrawal Minerals (Goa) Pvt Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioner, Manohar Hiru Naik Parulekar, and the respondent No. 1. M/s. Agrawal Minerals (Goa) Pvt. Ltd., entered into an agreement dated 29-10-1969 for raising iron ore in a part of the mine "Guelliem Gaval" belonging to the petitioner. The agreement was for the period of 3 years from 1-11-1969 to 30-10-1972. A dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. As the dispute was likely to cause a breach of the peace, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panaji, held proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and by his order dated 15-3-1971, decided that the respondent No. 1 was in possession of a part of the mine "Guelliem Gaval". He, therefore, declared that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to possession of the mine until he was evicted from it by due course of law and forbade all disturbance of such possession until such eviction. The petitioner went in revision to the Sessions Judge, who made over the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, sitting at Margao. The Additional Sessions Judge by his detailed judgement running over 28 pages delivered on 12-5-1971, not only dismissed the Revision Application, but went on further to uphold the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner now comes before me in revision.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that by the said agreement, he engaged the respondent No. 1 as an ore raising contractor to extract iron ore from the mine in question; that he had his own manager, two clerks and a watchman to look after the working of the mine; that the mine was in his possession and the respondent No. 1 was in the mine only as his worker; and that he was entitled to dismiss the respondent No. 1 from his service and stop his entry into the mine.
(3.) The case of the respondent No. 1, who was the only respondent who contested the petition, is that under the agreement of 29-10-1969, he was put in possession of the mine for the purpose of extracting ore for the period of 3 years ending on 30-10-1972; and that therefore the petitioner could not oust him from that possession unless by due process of law.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.