Mumbai Court July 2000 Judgments
Behram Sheriar Irani Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR473; (2001)1BOMLR31
A. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, dated 27.2.1987 in Appeal Desai C.L.N. 2007/86.2. Briefly stated, after the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 came into force, the Petitioner, filed his return. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Palghar by his order dated 15.3.1976 was pleased to drop the said proceeding having held that the holding of the Petitioner was less than the Ceiling Limit.3. After a lapse of about 10 years the Tahasildar and Chairman. Surplus Land Determination, Palghar initiated suo motu proceedings for an enquiry to determine the ceiling limit of the Petitioner. By order dated 23.2.1986, the Tahasildar and Chairman, Surplus Land Determination, after examining the records held that the holding of the Petitioner was less than the ceiling limit and accordingly dropped the proceedings.4. What is relevant to point out i...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Bajirao Jagtap and anr. Vs. Jaywant Tukaram Jagtap Since Deceas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR477; (2001)4BOMLR330
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is directed against the Judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 31.10.1985 in Revision No. 8 of 1983.Briefly stated the Petitioners are landlords in respect of agricultural lands bearing Survey No. 162/1, 162/3, 164/4 and 214 situated at village Belsar, Tahsil Purandhar, District Pune. It would be relevant facts it would be essential to reproduce the genealogy of the parties which is as under :- Tukaram ---------------------------------------------------------------- | | Jaywant (R) Anandrao Bajirao(1) Yeshwant (2) Baban (3) Krishna (Changunabai) (Petr. No. 2)(4) Kundalik (5) Baburao (Ganpat (Petr. No. 1)(6) Muktabai (7) Laxmibai(8) Shantabai (9) Sakhubai-Shobhabai.From the said genealogy it will be seen that parties are related to each other through common ancestral Tukarani. The said lands were originally owned by Tukarani. After his demise his son Anandrao started claiming the suit land an...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Vishnu Zodage Vs. Baburao Baban Goswami and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom123; 2000(4)ALLMR762
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition under Art. 227 of India is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 13-6-1986 in Revision No. 2 of 1984. 2. The respondent No. 1 is the owner in respect of the land bearing S. No. 149/1 /B1 situated at Ghodegaon village, admeasuring 2 H 33 Ares. The respondent No. 1 on 1-10-1997 filed an application before the A.I.T. and Addl. Tahsildar, Ambegaon under Section 32-O of R.I. and A.I. Act, contending that he is the owner of the land in question, whereas the petitioner and respondent No. 2, though claim to be tenants in respect of the suit land have failed to exercise right to purchase the suit land as prescribed under Section 32-O of the Act, and therefore, become liable to be evicted from the suit land and possession thereof be made over to the respondent No. 1. In the said application, the respondent No. 1 disputed that he had created any tenancy rights in favour of the petitioner and th...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanan S/O Shamrao Thakre Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ704Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner was employed by the Respondent Corporation as a conductor from 1981. He was served with a charge-sheet dated February 23, 1984 under the provisions of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure framed by the Corporation. It was alleged against him that he was guilty of misconduct under the Clauses 7-A, B, C, 12- B and 22. The charges related to collection of fare from the passengers and not issuing tickets to them and Rs. 6.25 Ps. were found short in the cash counted at the time of inspection of the bus. He was called upon to furnish his written explanation which the petitioner did by his letter dated April 17, 1984 denying the charges levelled against him. He flatly denied that he had ever collected any fare from the alleged passengers and, therefore, no tickets were issued to them enroute the journey. He also denied the fact that the cash was checked on the spot of checking but according to him it was done at a subsequent point of the journey at Gangakhed bu...
Tag this Judgment!Digambar Rambhau Kalaskar Vs. Chief Manager, Staff Administration, Ban ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR855]; (2000)IIILLJ72Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The Petitioner was in the employment of the Bank of Maharashtra at Pune as a clerk. He was suspended from employment by an order dated March 16, 1973 as there was cash shortage of Rs. 369/- on March 15, 1973 and that he had confessed such shortage of cash. He had also further confessed that he had utilised the said money for his own domestic use. The Petitioner was finally dismissed, without any domestic inquiry, and without any opportunity of hearing, by an order dated September 22, 1973. The Petitioner appears to have approached the Bank Management for reinstatement but it was in vain. It appears from the record that he had raised an industrial dispute and had approached the Labour Commissioner under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but the file was closed on December 7, 1973. It appears that the Petitioner did nothing, thereafter, as required under the law. Shri Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for the Petitioner, has submitted that he was approaching t...
Tag this Judgment!Metal Rolling Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. General Labour Union (Red Flag) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ294Bom
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai dated August 13, 1986 in Reference (II) No. 26 of 1985. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the present petition are as under: The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and carries on business of converting aluminium ingots into aluminium sheets, circles, strips and slungs at its factory situated at Sion, Mumbai. The 1st respondent is a registered trade union, which at the material time represented the workmen of the petitioner factory. That prior to 1983 the workmen of the petitioner were represented by a union known as Shramik Janta Sangh(hereinafter referred to as SJS Union). The said Union addressed certain charter of demands vide letters dated July 5, 1982 and July 14, 1982. Since no agreement/settlement could be reached in respect of the said demands, the petitioner offered...
Tag this Judgment!Gammon India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR593; 2001(1)BomCR483
B.P. Singh, C.J. 1. The petitioners herein have, by this writ petition, challenged the action on the part of respondent No. 1-Municipal Corporation purporting to reject and exclude as non-responsive the petitioners' tender for the work in question, which involves the construction and completion of approximately 5.6 Kms. and 6.35 Kms. long, reinforced concrete-lined tunnels of 3 metres finished diameter from Bhandup Complex to Malad Hill Reservoir and from Malad Hill Reservoir to Charkop Via Liberty Garden, using the same two full face rock tunnel boring machines. 2. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of construction, building activities and other allied specialised works, having to its credit successful completion of several prestigious projects. Petitioner No. 2 is a German company which has extensive experience, and has developed expertise, in civil construction work including boring tunnels and other allied ...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip J. Bhatia Vs. the Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR448
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule.2. By consent rule returnable forthwith. 3. This writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the State Minister (Home), Government of Maharashtra dated 15-5-1999. 4. Briefly stated, the petitioner was running a hotel in the name and style of M/s. Satyam Lodging and Boarding at Satyam Industrial Estate No. 2, Pokharan No. 1, Thane for which he had obtained Eating Registration Certificate No. 42 of 1981 and Lodging Licence No. 77 of 1981. It is stated that on 5-3-1997 the local police forcibly entered the hotel rooms occupied by decent persons and booked 2 cases against them. According to the petitioner some of the persons were so humiliated that they did not contest the cases booked against them under sections 110 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and preferred to pay fine. It is further stated that certain cases filed against the employees/staff of the petitioner hotel under provisions of the...
Tag this Judgment!Gowardhandas Vishnudas Gandhi Vs. Shri Mohammed Hanif Hajigulam Atar a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR28
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Satara dated 6th October, 1986 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1984.2. The Petitioner is the landlord in respect of the property bearing House No. 266, Bhavani Peth, Satara city. The Respondents are heirs of original tenant/original Respondent. The Respondents are monthly tenants of the business premises situated on the first floor of the said property at monthly rent of Rs. 18/- plus education cess. According to the Petitioner the Respondents failed and neglected to pay the monthly rent from 31.12.1975 onwards continuously for more than 6 months. Consequently, the petitioner issued suit notice to the original tenant dated 27.9.1978 thereby terminating the tenancy of the Respondents by end of October 1978. In spite of the said notice the tenant did not offer the demanded rent nor raised any dispute regarding the standa...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vithabai Balwant Jadhav Vs. Shri Shripati Tukaram Jorkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR57
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has been filed by the petitioner-landlady challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 28.7.1986.2. The husband of the Petitioner-landlady, original owner, died on 31.7.1944. On the tiller's day, i.e. 1.4.1957, the petitioner was a disabled landlady and as per the provisions of Section 32F of the B.T. and A.L. Act, the tiller's day; and consequently the right of the tenant to purchase the land as deemed tenant, stood postponed. Nevertheless, proceedings under Section 32G of the Act were initiated and public notice in that behalf was given on 1.5.1961 for fixing the purchase price in respect of the suit land bearing S. Nos. 70(2)(B) situated at Khamgaon, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. In the said proceedings, before the Additional Mamlatdar and A.L.T. No. 4. Haveli, one of the issue framed was - as to whether the tiller's day is postponed, which is evident from the order passe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »