Mumbai Court March 2005 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.
Maharashtra Rajya Macchimar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Vs. State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj1142
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of counsel. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waive service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Sometime in the year 1951 Government of India erected an ice factory, a cold storage and a fish meal plant at Sasoon Docks at Colaba, Mumbai. On 1st May, 1964, the complex consisting of the ice factory, cold storage and fish meal plant came to be transferred to the Fisheries Department of the Government of Maharashtra. Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation Limited, which is the third respondent to these proceedings, was established on 5th February, 1973 and the aforesaid complex was transferred to it by the State Government. The MFDC operated the project between 1973 and 1976. The State Government thereafter took a decision onW. P. No. 592 of 2002 decided on 22-3-2005. (O.O.C.J., ...
Suryakant Govindrao Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR84; 2005(4)BomCR168; 2005(3)MhLj218
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. Petitioner was one of the applicants who had applied pursuant to an advertisement issued by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for allotting the fair price shops. The 3rd respondent, after considering all the applications, was pleased to allot fair price shops in favour of the petitioner herein and one Shri. Vechu Shripatsingh Chavan. Their applications were found to comply with all the necessary requirements. The order notes that the allotment of authorization in favour of Vechu Shripatsingh Chavan is subject to his surrendering his kerosene licence. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 aggrieved by the selection, preferred revision applications before the Hon'ble Minister, Food and Civil Supply Department. The Revisional Authority noted that the order of respondent No. 3 awarding shops to petitioner and respondent No. 4 was within jurisdiction. Then, however, proceeded to hold that the applications by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were also in order and that the proposed area is an industrial a...
Dharma Radhya Vartha and ors. Vs. Ramesh Vrijlal Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR108; 2005(3)MhLj352
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated October 25, 1985, in Revision No. Ten.A. 169 of 1983.2. Briefly stated, the lands in question are agricultural lands. In the present proceedings, the respective petitioners claim to be in occupation of the lands, which were subject-matter of applications under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, preferred by the petitioners for declaration that they were tenants in respect of the said lands. The holding of the respective petitioners as against the concerned land claimed by them is as follows.Sr. No.Name of the PetitionerLand involved in the suit village GargaonS. No.NisaArea Ac.-Guns.1.Dharam Raghya Varatha391-25-02.Raja Ziparya Vanga3716-19-03.Devya Barkya Varkhanda9420-03-0520-02-47100-11-81280-11-83970-21-839102-19-05760-06-04.Chintu Dama Varatha1720-39-42960-03-123010-02-83060-03-123120-1-03150-3-03750-11-037100-26-05.Laxya ...
Dada Fire Works Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, through I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR627; 2005(4)BomCR50; 2005(3)MhLj807
Rebello F.I., J.1. In none of these petitions, rule has been issued. Counsel have however argued the matters on merits. In the light of that, rule in all the petitions. Respondent waive service. By consent heard forthwith.2. All these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment, and order as they raise common questions of law. The facts in each petition will be dealt with separately;In Writ Petition No. 5604 of 2002, the petitioner is a company which claims ownership on the land which is identified under Survey Nos. 191, 192, 193, 194 and the entire Survey No. 195/2 of village Phursungi, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 25-7-2002 to acquire land for public purpose viz. extension of garbage depot, garbage treatment plant and 40 ft. wide road. A declaration under Section 6 has subsequently been made on 29-11-2002. It is this declaration which is the subject-matter...
Ramesh Bapurao Chiddarwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR319; 2005(3)MhLj965
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-landowner questions the order dated 17-1-1992, passed by the respondent No. 3 Commissioner in suo motu revision proceeding under Section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The grievance made in nut shell is that though, show cause notice was only in relation to survey No. 9, during hearing the Commissioner also included the survey Nos. 70 and 123, in the scope of revision and has passed adverse orders. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset stated that insofar as the challenge to land survey No. 15/2 is concerned, the same is not being pressed as the land is already declared surplus and possession is also handed over by the petitioner.2. Advocate R. R. Deshpande, appearing for the petitioner states, that in relation to survey No. 9, there was an agreement for sale on 31-12-1969, and accordingly possession was also handed...
Mrs. Maria Sibilia Crasto Vs. Mr. Luis Antonio Jose Sarto Pires and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR593; (2005)107BOMLR208
A.P. Lavande, J.1. By this petition the petitioner takes exception to order dated 4th March, 2004, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. to add her as party to Regular Civil Suit No. 30/03/A pending before the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Mapusa. Briefly, the facts which are relevant for the disposal of this petition are as under :-On 27th January, 2003, respondent No. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 30/03/A in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mapusa, against Isabella Fernandes and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 alleging that the said Isabella, her Mundkar in respect of house bearing No. 7/15 had made certain extensions to the said house, without purchasing the same under the Goa Mundkar's (Protection From Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). During the pendency of the suit, the said Isabella expired on 4th August, 2003, leaving behind two sons, respondent No. 2 herein and one Assis Fernandes...
Air India Limited Vs. R.H. Sonarikar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR577]; 2005(3)MhLj223
D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The first respondent was appointed as an Assistant Flight Purser with Air India on 20th September, 1975 and was confirmed in service with effect from 1st July, 1976. On 1st June, 1994, the first respondent was redesignated as a Senior Check Flight Purser. On 3rd July, 1997, the first respondent was arrested by the Police at the International Airport at Delhi and a First Information Report was lodged. The first respondent was charged with the commission, of offences under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of the Penal Code. The first respondent was placed under suspension on 9th July, 1997. A charge-sheet was issued to the first respondent on 9th October, 1997 for a disciplinary proceeding on the allegation that he had conspired to smuggle two passengers into Canada by using pass...
Shree Niwas Girni Kamgar Kruti Samiti Vs. Rangnath Basudev Somani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR708; [2005]127CompCas752(Bom); (2005)6CompLJ246(Bom); [2005]62SCL175(Bom)
A.P. Shah, J.1. Appeals admitted.2. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, appeals were taken up for hearing. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Appeals are being disposed of by this judgment.3. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order of the learned Company Judge in Company Petition No. 315 of 2004 decided on 23-7-2004. The learned Company Judge by the impugned judgment rejected a scheme of revival of Shree Niwas Cotton Mills Ltd. (now in liquidation), hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'. The scheme has been approved by the overwhelming majority by the shareholders and creditors, both secured and unsecured and the Union representing about 4500 workmen. Not a single creditor including any workman or shareholder or any person connected with the company or affected by the scheme opposed it either before the learned Company Judge or before us. The State Bank of India withdrew its consent only temporarily and that too only after the present Appeals...
Modi Xerox Limited and ors. Vs. Ms. Niloo Makhija and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR450; (2005)IIILLJ665Bom
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Perused the records.2. The petitioners seek to challenge the complaint, filed by the respondent No. 1 being Misc. Criminal Complaint. (U.L.P.) No. 18 of 1999 alongwith the process issued by the Labour Court under Order dated 15,3.1999 and confirmed by the Industrial Court by Order dated 16.11.1999. The grievance of the petitioners is that the complaint does not disclose the offence so as to enable the Labour Court to take cognizance thereof under Section 48 of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.3. Few facts which are relevant for the decision in the matter are that the respondent No. 1 was transferred by Order dated 16.3.1998 from her initial posting at Andheri to the office of the petitioners at Vashi. The same was sought to be challenged by way of Complaint No. 319 of 1998, which was allowed by the Industrial Court and the transfer Order was quashed by its Order dated 16.12.1998 and the petitioners Company was directed to allow the respondent No. 1 to work at Andh...
P.R. Trivedi, S.C. Soni and V.B. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC351
1. These three appeals arise out of the same common order and are being disposed of by this common Order; after hearing both sides, and considering the issues, it is found: (a) M/s Saidut Clearing Agency Pvt Ltd, Clearing Agent (CHA No. 11/978) filed Bills of Entry as follows as accepted in the notice itself. Since the three consignments were supplied by the same foreign supplier M/s Lim Manufacturing (Pte) Ltd, Singapore and they had arrived by the same vessel and invoices raised were in consecutive serial numbers and Bill of Lading and IGM were issued on same day and had examined these goods based on intelligence with DRI, Mumbai Zonal Unit that certain electronic goods namely CD/VCD Hi-Fi Systems and Car Cassettes Playes were being imported in the guise of electronic components and the importers were misdeclaring the description of the goods and also were evading MRP based CVD. These consignments imported by M/s Saumya Marketing and M/s Mega Enterprises, consisting of parts of elec...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »