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.
Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (14) a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR289; 2004(6)BomCR60; 2004(4)MhLj908; [2005]59SCL560(Bom)
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition the petitioner which is a Government of India undertaking-company established by Government of India under the Companies Act, has challenged the proceedings for land acquisition taken up by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (14), Pune in respect of lands owned an acquisition by the Company, the acquisition by the Company itself being done under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. The petitioner-Company has been declared as sick industrial unit as per the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as 'SICA' on 31.3.97.3. In May, 1998 Collector, Pune published in official gazette a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for acquiring some of the lands of the petitioner-company. On 26.11.1998 a notification under Section 9, Sub-sections 3 and 4 was issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (14), Pune hereinafter referred to as 'SLAO'. ...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shantidevi W/O Rambharose Upadhyay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ897; 2004(4)MhLj569
Anoop V. Mohta, J.Introduction:1. This appeal has been preferred by the original non-applicant No. 2/appellant herein. National Insurance Company Limited (for short 'Insurance Company'), and thereby, challenged the award dated 20-3-1987, passed in Motor Accident Claim No. 29/1983, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal (for short 'the Tribunal'), and thereby awarded the compensation amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- in favour of the original applicants/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein, and against the appellant Insurance Company and the respondent No. 6, owner of the vehicle, with 6% interest per annum from the date of application till the date of realization. There is no appeal by the owner/respondent No. 6.Facts :2. On 22-4-1982, one Rambharose Upadhyay, was driving truck No. CPH 7585, owned by the respondent No. 6, met with an accident and he was crushed to death, because the axle of the front wheel broke down as a result of which the truck turned turtle on the driver's side. The decea...
State Bank of India Vs. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR296; 2004(4)MhLj773
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Petitioners by the present petition by way of relief have sought to recall or rescind the letter dated 17-9-1999 whereby respondent Corporation intimated to the petitioners that the property tax as set out therein are still payable and for further relief to recall or rescind the warrant of attachment at Exh. AG dated 27-9-1999 issued in connection with non payment of Sewerage tax. Various other reliefs are also sought in terms of Prayer Clause (a). Prayer Clause (b) is for a writ of prohibition to restrain respondents from taking any further steps in respect of the impugned wrongful demand for sewerage taxes as contained in the letter of respondent No. 4 dated 17-9-1999 at Exh. AH as also the warrant of attachment as set out earlier.2. A few facts may be set out which are necessary for deciding the controversy which has arisen and arising out of the subject matter of the petition. The petitioners contend that it is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of...
Syed Kasim Syed Rustam Vs. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR769; 2005(1)MhLj246
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Khandekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kilor, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.2. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 29-6-1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner as well as order of Termination dated 20-7-1991 passed by the Municipal Council - respondent No. 2.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the year 1986, some vacancies arose in the Primary School run by Municipal Council in the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner's name was recommended by the Employment Exchange. The petitioner appeared before the Interview Committee on 12-9-1986 and was selected by the Committee and therefore, the Municipal Council, vide Resolution dated 17-9-1986 appointed the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the Primary School. Pursuant to the said resolution, the appointment order dated 18-9-1986 was issued by the Municipal Council and the Education department granted approval to the appointm...
Shankar Shantaram Dighe Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR685; 2005(1)BomCR237
Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner by the present petition challenges the order dated 25-11-2003 with further direction that the appeal preferred by him be disposed of.3. On behalf of the respondent No. 3, it is pointed out that the order dated 25-11-2003 is an order passed by the Appellate Authority itself and hence, there is no question of the appeal being heard.4. Even considering the order of 25-11-2003 to be a final order in appeal, from the persual of the order, it is not possible to find out as to basis on which the documents produced by the petitioner including documents at Sr. Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 8 have been rejected. Under S.R.A. Scheme competent authority and the Appellate Authority are the only fact finding authorities. Their decision is not subject to challenge before the Civil Court. This Court also would not re-appreciate the facts in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction. In these circumstances, it is incumbent on the authorities below to give at ...
Quadricon Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Maxi D'Souza and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR759; (2005)ILLJ75Bom; 2004IIICLR530
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Mr. J.P. Cama, the learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.S. Chavan, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 15.2. Admit. Returnable forthwith.3. Mr. P.S. Chavan, the learned counsel waives service for respondent Nos. 1 to 15. Service on respondent No. 16 is dispensed with being formal party. We also dispense with the paper books.4. By consent of the learned senior counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is treated on board and heard finally at this stage.5. The respondent Nos. 1 to 15 are the complainants in the complaint filed under Schedule-II and Item Nos. 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV read with Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'MRTU & PULP Act'). The said complaint is directed against the present appellants.6. The complainants averred in the complaint that they are employees of appellant No. 1 company. They alleged that the ...
Rahibai Vithoba Pashankar and ors. Vs. Pandurang Kundlik Gujar and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR887
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated February 22, 1990 in Revision No. MRT/P/X/9/1982 (TNC.B. 32-B/1982. The land in question is agricultural land Survey No. 45 admeasuring 16 acres 6 gunthas situated at village Malalung, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune. The said land was Remoshi Inam land, which was Class III Inam. That was abolished under the provisions of the Bombay Inferior and Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 with effect from 1 st May, 1959. The holder of the land paid the requisite amount on 21 st April, 1962, on which date the land stood regranted to him. The predecessor of the respondent, one Rama Arjun Ramoshi, who was the owner of the suit land, died in the year 1952. His son Shripati also died on 3rd October, 1975, leaving behind respondent No. 3 herein, the second wife, and his daughter Shantabai from the first wife, and his daug...
Dattusing Giridharsingh Rajput (Thakur) Vs. Bhagwant Devasthan and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Bom86; 2005(1)ALLMR298; 2005(2)BomCR290; 2005(2)MhLj743
Abhay S. Oka, J. 1. Both the aforesaid Second Appeals were admitted by this Court on 26th February 1988 by passing the following order :'Whether a grave miscarriage of justice has occurred in the case because (1) the 1st Appellate Court having found that the revocation letter dated 3-9-1971 fulfills all requirements of revocation did not hold it to be proved, and (2) found the Will dated 26-4-1966 in favour of Deosthan proved when no attesting witness was examined?Admit.'I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties in both Second Appeals. Considering the controversy involved in the Appeals, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties; are referred to with reference to their status in the trial Court in Reg. Civil Suit No. 586 of 1976. Second Appeal No. 69 of 1988 arises out of the decree passed in Reg. Civil Suit No. 586 of 1976. The Respondents in the said Second Appeal are the original Plaintiffs in Reg. Civil Suit No....
Mysore Fruit Products Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Custodian and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR278; (2005)107BOMLR955
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. Misc. Petition No. 25 of 2002 has been filed by Mysore Fruit Products Ltd., M/s. Karnataka Breweries and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. and Shri D. K. Audikesavulu challenging the order passed by the custodian dated 12th December, 2001 under Section 4(1) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity) cancelling the transaction of sale of 1 lakh shares of Fairgrowth Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. Hiten Dalai, the notified party.Misc. Application No. 18 of 2004 has been taken out by the custodian basically for a direction to the petitioner in Misc. Application Petition No. 25 of 2002 to deposit with the custodian the amount of Rs. 4,00,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 14% p.a. from the date of receipt of the amount.2. Both these petition and application relate to the same transaction, therefore, both these petitions can be disposed of by a common order.The petit...
Prakash B. Rupe Vs. Sub-divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR503]; (2005)IIILLJ40Bom
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. In the present petition, the petitioner is seeking to challenge an order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated December 18, 1997. Some of the material facts are as under:The petitioner was appointed as a Government employee in an emergency situation. In 1977 during the period of strike of the Government employee his services were urgently required for election purpose.2. On August 27, 1984, a certificate has been issued by Tahsildar certifying that the petitioner has worked as a Polling Officer in election. On August 1, 1985, the petitioner was called for interview or an appointment to the post of Talathi at Sadure, Tal. Vaibhav, Wadi. It is the case of the petitioner that because the petitioner worked as a Government employee during the strike period his educational qualification at the time of his appointment were relaxed.3. Sometime in or about May 16, 1990, the petitioner received a letter that the petitioner's services were terminated as he has ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »