Mumbai Court July 2004 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.
Khubiram S/O Bodalram Sharma and ors. Vs. Resident Deputy Collector an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR668; 2004(3)MhLj953
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati dated 17-5-1991 thereby partly allowing the appeal of the respondent No. 2 and granting permission to the respondent No. 2 under Clause 13(3)(iv), (viii) and (ix) of the Rent Control Order to issue quit notice to the petitioners, the petitioners approached this Court by way of present petition.2. The facts in brief out of which the present petition arises are as under :--That the respondent No. 2 herein preferred an application under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii),(iv), (viii) and (ix) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Control Order'). It was the contention of the respondent No. 2 in his application that the non-applicants therein were given premises for running a hotel only. It was further averred that the non-applicants are using the premises for pan shop. It was thus complained that the non-applicants are using part...
Sudhir R. Koli and ors. Vs. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR24; 2004(3)MhLj925
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board has been constituted in pursuance of the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, in order to exercise the powers conferred upon it and perform the functions assigned to it by the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act lays down that subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government, the Board may appoint such officers and employees as it considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions. The Board is empowered by Sub-section (3A) of the same section to frame regulations for determining the method of recruitment and conditions of service, including the scales of pay of its officers and employees. The regulations have to be approved by the State Government before they can take effect.2. In the present case, the six petitioners before the Court were Data Entry Operators on fixed term contracts during diverse periods of time when computerization of the office o...
Vijaya Irappa Kattimni Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR729; 2005(1)BomCR829; 2005(1)MhLj194
A.P. Shah, Acg. C.J.1. In this petition the Petitioner, who is a tenant of shop premises in a shopping complex belonging to the Respondent No. 2 public trust, has challenged the legality and validity of the exemption granted to the properties of the Respondent No. 2 from all the provisions of the bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the 'Act') in exercise of powers conferred upon the State Government under Section 4(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Act.2. Section 4 of the Act runs thus:'4.Exemptions - (1)..(2) The State Government may direct that all or any of the provisions of the Act (shall not subject to such conditions and terms as it may specify, apply generally,) (i) to premises used for a public purpose of a charitable nature or to any class of premises used for such purpose;(ii) to premises held by a charitable trust for a religious or charitable purpose and (let or given on licence, at a nominal or concessional rent or licence fee or charge); or(iii)...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ambarnath Bapusaheb Gade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4445
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. A. M. Shringarpure, App for the Appellant - State and Mr. b. P. Abhale for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 / Original Accused2. This is an Appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 376(g) of Indian Penal Code i.e. gang rape by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, vide Judgment date 18.11.1988. The facts giving rise to the case of gang rape against the accused are as under.3. Jaishree was a victim of the gang rape. She was wife of accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 was her father in law, accused No. 3 was his brother in law, accused No. 4 maternal uncle and accused No. 5 one of the neighbour of the aforesaid accused. About four years before the incident she was married with the accused No. 1 and after the marriage she started living with accused No. 1 at Village Sakore. She was ill-treated by the accused. She was compelled to fetch Rs. 5,000/= from her father. She was being insulted because she was black in complexio...
Bank Karmachari Sangh Vs. S.S. Hirurkar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR140; 2004(5)BomCR22; (2005)ILLJ524Bom; 2005(1)MhLj255
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The question involved in this petition is whether the respondent-bank was entitled to make deductions from the salaries of Grade I and II officers towards Union levy and Employees Welfare Trust and not remit the same to petitioner which is a representative union.2. The facts in this case are not disputed. The petitioner Union, which is a representative union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act for employees in the Banking industry for Pune city cantonment and Talukas in Pune district, entered into an agreement under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. This agreement was preceded by a resolution of the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank setting out the terms of the settlement. In Clause 20 of the resolution, it was stated that out of the arrears payable to the employees covered by the settlement 10% would be remitted as levy and 5% towards the employees welfare trust to the petitioner Union. Under Clause 26 of the Resolution, it was m...
Vattekktte Madhavan Nair and anr. Vs. Shipping Corporation of India Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR810
Rebello F.I., J.1. The petitioners at the time of filing of the petition were Junior Officers, and were members of the Shipping Corporation of India, Officers Association, hereinafter referred to as the association. All the petitioners, are citizens of India. They came to be promoted from staff to junior Officers between 1st January, 1984 and 31st December, 1987. On 19th October, 1987, the association representing amongst others the petitioners herein signed a Wage Agreement with the management whereunder certain higher scales of pay were fixed and made to operate retrospectively so as to cover inter alia all staff members who has been promoted to the rank and post of Junior Officers from the year 1984 and upto the date of the said agreement. The agreement was to operate only upto August, 1988.2. It is the petitioners case that in November, 1989 they came to learn that the respondent had signed another agreement with the staff union who rep- resents Class III and IV Cadre. The Agreemen...
Subhadrabai Kachari Khandagale Vs. Balwanta Narayan Jadhav and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR732; 2005(1)BomCR875; 2005(1)MhLj891
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. Heard. The present second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/original plaintiff, against the judgment and decree dated 06-02-1990, passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Buldhana, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 89/1986, whereby the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting decree in favour of the appellant against the defendants by holding that the appellants have l/3rd share to the extent of her father's share i.e. in house property and field was set aside, therefore, this second appeal.2. This second appeal was admitted on 8-4-1991, on the Points No. 2 and 3, as mentioned in the memo of appeal. Those points are as follows:'2. Whether the property in the hands of Ananda i.e. plaintiffs father was a separate property in view of his being the sole surviving member of the coparcener after separation/ partition from his brothers? If yes, whether by way of succession the plaintiff being the only legal heir of the deceased Ana...