Mumbai Court October 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Anil Nanasaheb Pawar Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR433
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of dismissal passed against him on 15th June, 1989. He has also prayed that after quashing the order of dismissal it be declared that the petitioner is entitled for the pensionary benefits. In the alternative he has prayed that even if the order of dismissal is upheld nonetheless it be decided that he is entitled to the pensionary benefits. 2. The facts leading to the passing of the order of dismissal may be briefly noticed. The petitioner joined the Indian Army as a Sepoy on 14-1-1975. He was promoted to the post of N Naik in 1986 and further promoted as Naik in 1987-88 whereupon he has designated as D.M.T. under drivers trade. He availed annual sanctioned leave to visit his parental home from 19th November, 1988 to 12th January, 1989. Thereafter he did not join duty till 30th April, 1989. Thus he was absent from duty without any sanctioned leave for...
Narsinh Mahadeo Taklikar Vs. the Solapur Municipal Corporation and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR357
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the land admeasuring 19626.12 sq.mts. out of F.P. No. 18 in T.P. Scheme No. 3, S. No. 217, C.T.S. No. 7711-I of Solapur. In the alternative he has made a prayer for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to immediately proceed to take the proceedings for acquisition of the aforesaid property under section 78 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and to determine the compensation as on the date of notification for acquisition that may be issued by respondents. He has also made a prayer for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from raising any construction or buildings in the said property.2. The said writ petition came up for preliminary hearing on 2nd February, 1989 where a Division Bench of this Court ...
V.R. Maranbasari Since Deceased, Through Heir and L/R Shri Ashok Maran ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR442
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay on 31-7-1996 whereby the Court below refused to frame additional issues other than limitation as proposed by the defendants. 3. By way of notice, the defendants submitted before the Court below that five issues be framed in addition to the issues already framed. (a) Whether the demand for recovery of rent and permitted increases of the suit premises are barred by law of limitation?(b) Whether the rent charged to the suit premises is excessive, exhorbitant and much more than the standard rent of the suit premises ?(c) If so, what is the standard rent and permitted increases of the suit premises ?(d) Whether the defendants prove that they have obtained sanction/permission from the Bombay Municipal Corporation for change of user of the premises ?(e) If so, whether such, permission amounts to waiver of terms and conditions of lease 4. The...
Laxmanrao Bapurao Jadhav and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR341; (1997)99BOMLR220
ORDER1. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on June 19, 1982 acquiring lands in Survey No. 27/C.1/A/1 admeasuring 1 hectare, 19 acres and 8 tees for construction of houses for weaker sections of the society. Notification under Section 5-A was issued. The enquiry was conducted and on satisfaction that it was needed for public purpose, declaration under Section 6 was published on January 17, 1983. After the Land Acquisition Officer issued notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, the respondent No. 3 filed writ petition in the High Court questioning the validity of the notification and the declaration. The contention raised and accepted by the High Court was that since Section 3-A of the Bombay (Amendment) Act, 1945 (22 of 1945) empowers the officer authorised by the Commissioner to satisfy himself whether the land is needed for a public purpose and since the authorised officer had not satisfied in that behalf, the Gover...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›