Mumbai Court December 1998 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.
Bombay Environmental Action Group and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR455
ORDERP.S. Patankar, J. 1. All these three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be disposed of by this common Judgment as they involve common questions.2. Writ Petition No. 2773 of 1997 and Writ Petition No. 3041 of 1997 are filed by the same Environment Group from Bombay as public interest litigation. The prayer in W.P. No. 2773 of 1997 is for declaring Notifications dated 26-11-96 and 25-11-97 issued by the Government of Maharashtra as void and illegal. W.P. No. 3041 of 1997 is for setting aside the letter of Intent dated 7th January, 1997 issued by the State Government in favour of Sahara India Housing Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sahara) and to restrain Sahara from carrying out any development on that basis. W.P. No. 2247 of 1997 is also filed as a public interest litigation by an Association from Pune. The prayer made is to declare the Government Notification dated 26-11-96 as null and void. There is also intervention made on behalf of 36 tribals praying...
Jayant N. Sheth, Proprietor Struct Mast Engineers Vs. Gyneshwar Apartm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR774
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. This is an application under sub-section (4) of section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') for appointment of an arbitrator to settle the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent society.2. I have heard Mr. G. J. Makhija, learned Counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. Y.V. Divekar, learned Counsel for the respondent society. The contention of Mr. Divekar is that there is no arbitration agreement in this case between the petitioner and the respondent society within the meaning of section 2(1)(b) of the Act and hence no arbitrator can be appointed under section 11(4) of the Act to decide the disputes arising out of the work executed by the petitioner. When the learned Counsel for the petitioner was asked to show the arbitration agreement, he could not show any arbitration agreement between the parties in writing. He stated that there was an understanding between the parties to enter into an agreement and on that basis h...
Prakash Dattaram Parulekat and Others Vs. Dattaram Damodar Diukar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR458
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This petition arises from the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal passed on 18th August, 1997 in Eviction Appeal No. 16 of 1992. By the impunged judgment, the tribunal has allowed the Appeal filed by the respondents against the Order of the Rent Controller dated 25th May, 1992 and while setting aside the Order of the Rent Controller has allowed the application of the respondents for the eviction of the petitioners on the ground of bona fide personal requirement as well as on the ground of non payment of rent under section 22(2)(a) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 hereinafter called as 'the said Act'.2. The petitioners are in occupation of southernmost compartment of House No. 115 situated in the property bearing Chalta No. 36 of P.T. Sheet No. 123 of city of Mapusa. The premises are situated at Dattawadi, Mapusa within Ward No. 9 of Mapusa Municipal Council.3. Sometime in 1968, the original owners of the...
Mrs. Teresinha Coelho and Others Vs. Dr. Inacio Pio Jesus De Sa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR484; (2001)4BOMLR206; 2001(3)MhLj863
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This petition relates to the provisions contained in Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, hereinafter called as 'the said Act'. The point which arises for consideration is:-'Whether the decision of a Mamlatdar under section 32(2) of the said Act on an issue being referred to it under section 32(1) of the said Act is subject to an appeal under section 24 of the said Act or not? What is the scope and the extent of exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts under section 32 r/w 31(2) of the said Act?'2. The respondents herein filed a suit bearing No. 242/79/B in the Civil Court for eviction of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were the licensees in the house bearing No. 79 situated at Fondvem, Ribandar, Goa, hereinafter called as 'the suit house', and that their licence had been terminated and, therefore, they were trespassers in the suit house and hence, were liable to be evicted. The petitioners contested the su...
Shri Abdul Shakur Khan Vs. Shri R.D. Tyagi, Commissioner of Police, Mu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: 1999BomCR(Cri)359; (1999)1BOMLR855; 1999CriLJ1524; 1999(1)MhLj787
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. By virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this writ of Habeaus Corpus has been filed by the petitioner, who is the father of detenu by name Mohammedail @ Jango a resident of Shakur Compound, Gala No. 7 Khairani Road, Sakinaka, Bombay 400 072, detaining him in prison by virtue of section 3(2) of the National Security Act with the order passed by the first respondent Shri R.D. Tyagi, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai in his order D.O. No. 108/P.C.B./Zone-IX/1995 dated 7th December 1995, which was confirmed by the Government Order, Home Department (Special) No. N.S.A.-2395/1/S.P.-3(B) dated 20th November 1995, to challenge and oppose the same for its various laxity and legal impropriety. Though the above detention order was passed against the detenu above named, the grounds of detention and the execution of the order along with the copy of the documents referred to in Annexure 'A', 'B' and 'C' were served by the respondents to the detenu on 6th Dec...
Subhash Tatoda Nikam Vs. the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR760
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the High Court dated 12th February, 1996 in Administration Appeal of the petitioner against the order of his dismissal from service passed by the District Judge, Pune.2. The petitioner, who was working as a junior clerk in the Court of the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, was dismissed from service after departmental enquiry. The petitioner filed an appeal against the above order to the High Court. The said appeal was dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 12th February 1996. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the above order on the ground that no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.3. We have heard Mr. A.V. Anturkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the impugned order of the High Court is bad on account of failure to grant personal hearing to the petitioner before disposing of the appe...
Chandrabhan S/O Yamaji Nandanwar Vs. the Director of Health Services M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR14; 1999(2)BomCR45; 2002(4)MhLJ365
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J. 1. The petitioner entered the Government service initially under order dated 10-8-76 Annexure V. page 17 and later on came to be selected by the State Public Service Commission and therefore an appointment order Annexure XII page 25 came to be issued on 9-7-82. This followed by a confirmation order page 31 Annexure XIV dated 10-2-86. 2. Accordingly the petitioner was rendering services in the Health Department of the State of Maharashtra as Class II Officer. 3. The petitioner received an order on or about 25-4-86 at page 33 Annexure XV-A intimating him that his services are terminated because his caste claim has been invalidated. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is well founded against that order. The order does not reveal as to who scrutinised the claim, how it was scrutinised when it was done and whether the petitioner was ever intimated the decision of this exercise. There is no case whatsoever of petitioner having been given an opportunity by any of the autho...
Vasant S/O Pandurang Dhope Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR7; 1999(2)BomCR43
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J. 1. The petitioner came to be appointed in Medical and Health Service, Class II of the State of Maharashtra as per the order dated 8-2-79 Annexure 'F' page 17 onwards. It is an admitted position that he was appointed on the claim of being a Scheduled Tribe member. 2. By order dated 25-4-86 Annexure 'A-1' page 12-A, his services came to be terminated on the ground that caste claim is found to be false. This assertion was made on the basis of a scrutiny as indicated in that order on the next page 12-B. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was unaware of any scrutiny. If ever it was held and no order having been communicated, the petitioner is totally ignorant about when such scrutiny was done, by whom, where and on what basis. As mentioned above, no order of the scrutiny committee or the authority who did the exercise has been communicated to the petitioner. 4. At the time when the petition was filed, stay was granted and petitioner has continued to be in service...
Dr. Rushad T. Udwadia and Others Vs. Maharashtra Medical Council and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR726
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. The petitioner who is a Medical Practitioner has impugned in this petition-the show-cause notice dated 2nd February, 1987 issued by respondent No. 1 i.e. Maharashtra Medical Council which is annexed as Exhibit 'K' to this petition. By the said petition, the petitioner has also impugned the communication dated 12th October, 1987, which is annexed as Exhibit 'S' to this petition whereby the respondent No. 1 Medical Council had rejected his application to disallow Dr. Lalmalani to participate in the inquiry as a member of the Maharashtra Medical Council. 2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows :Respondent No. 2 was examined in Sion Hospital for primary Sterility. The petitioner had performed testicular biopsy test on the respondent No. 2 on 17-10-1985 for assessing sperm production. After the said test was carried out and receipt of the biopsy report, the respondent No. 2 had filed complaint that instead of performing Biopsy test the petiti...
Anmol S/O Shridhar Gharde and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR209; 1999BomCR(Cri)209; 1999CriLJ4239; 1999(1)MhLj692
ORDERS.D. Gundewar, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the convicts-appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27-9-1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 66/94, whereby the appellants/accused have been convicted under section 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine R.I. for one year. 2. Brief facts of the case are recapitulated as under :-The prosecutrix Ku. Nilima-P.W. 1 is the daughter of Prahlad Motghare, an employee in Ordnance Factory at Jawahar Nagar. She resides with her parents, sisters and brother in village Sawar (Indira Nagar), Tq. & District Bhandara. In the year 1993 she was studying in XIth Standard in Junior Girls College at Kondi. Some games and cultural programmes were arranged by the authorities of the said college from 21-12-1993 to 24-12-1993 on account of annual social gathering. On 21-...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »