Mumbai Court October 2006 Judgments

Shri Raghunath Narayan Bokil Vs. Shri Vithal Sawala Limbhori (Through ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR789; 2006(6)BomCR471; 2006(6)MhLj865

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The question referred to the larger Bench is: whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has jurisdiction to review its own order passed in the revision application under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948? 2. While making reference, the Single Judge noticed the judgment in the case of Anoopchand Nathmal Baid v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur and Ors. 1986 Mh.L.J., 520 wherein while considering the question whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short, `the Tribunal') has the power under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidharbha Region) Act, 1958 to review its own decision, the Single Judge held that under Section 315(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short, `MLR Code'), the Tribunal could exercise its jurisdiction only in cases arising under the provisions of the enactment specified in Schedule `J' of the MLR Code and since the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidharbh Region) Act, 1958...

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Precious Finance Investment Pvt. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR771; 2006(6)BomCR510

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 2. The order dated 4.3.2006 rejecting the application for amendment of written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai, is now under challenge before this Court by way of the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed at the instance of the defendants-petitioners, hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants'. 3. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs-respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs', on 11th November, 2003 against the defendants interalia contending that the plaintiffs required a suit premises i.e. plot of land bearing C.S.No.3/590 and 4/590 with the building standing thereon comprising seven flats or dwelling units, garage, covered spaces for car parks, servant quarters and compound, situate at L.Jagmohandas Marg, Mumbai, reasonably for their growing ne...

Bankerai Ambikarai Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR373; [2007(3)JCR2235]; 2006(6)MhLj873; 2007(3)AIRKarR321(FB)(Bom).

R.M. Lod that tha, J.1. The Division Bench, by the order dated 27th April, 2006, opined that the Writ Petition should be referred to larger Bench. This is what the Division Bench said in its order dated 27th April, 2006 :21. From what we have noted above, it is seen that four judgments rendered by the learned single Judges took the view that part-timers working in two colleges of two different managements were entitled to receive salary equivalent to a full time lecturer as also all retirement benefits. As against that, a Division Bench has declined to give the same benefits in the order rejecting Writ Petition No. 1355 of 2002 at the admission stage. The order passed by the Division Bench is a short order which refers to the Government Resolution dated 21-7-1983 and having looked into it, has declined to give the benefits as sought by a part-time lecturer working in two colleges. It has however so transpired that the judgments rendered by the learned single Judge in four matters refer...

Ramesh Suresh Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR803; 2006(6)BomCR820; AIR2007NOC728(FB)(Bom)

Lodha R.M., J.1. Ramesh Suresh Kamble - the petitioner - has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order dated 5-12-2005 passed by the respondent No. 3 disqualifying him under Section 16(1C)(a) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short the 'M.M.C. Act') as Councillor with effect from 24-11-2005. The order dated 5-12-2005 came to be passed because the petitioner's caste certificate dated 9-10-1998 was invalidated by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division. The Division Bench before which the matter came up for consideration was of the view that it required consideration by the larger Bench. This is what the Division Bench observed in the order dated 12-7-2006:By this petition, petitioner has questioned his automatic disqualification under the provisions of Section 16(1C)(B) of MMC Act. Division Bench of this Court of which I, (V.G. Palshikar, J.) was member, had taken a view that in order to attract provisions of Section 16(1C)(B), Caste Scrutiny Commi...

Mohanraj Rupchand JaIn Alias Chhajed Vs. Kewalchand Hastimal JaIn and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom69; 2007(3)BomCR737; 2007(1)MhLj691

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 29th August, 2006 passed by the revisional bench of the Small Cause Court, Mumbai, in Revision Application No. 23 of 2006 and the order dated 3rd December, 2005 passed by the trial Judge in Interim Notice No. 1576 of 2005 in R.A.E. Suit No. 752 of 2004. The order of the trial Judge relates to the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner objecting the admissibility of certain documents which were sought to be produced on record along with the affidavit in evidence filed under Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the order of the Revisional Court relates to the dismissal of the said revision against the said order of the trial Judge.3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, placing reliance in the decision of the learned Single Judge in Sayarabi Sayyad Abdul Ajij (Deceased), through LRs. v. Shri Abdul Rashid ...

iac (Assessment) Range Iv C, Adit Vs. Saurashtra Trust

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)106ITD1(Mum.)

1. Under Section 254(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Hon'ble President had constituted a special bench, in this case, to consider the following questions: (1) Whether the object of the assessee trust is an object of general public utility under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, the provisions of Section 11(4A) introduced w.e.f. 01.04.1984 are applicable to assessee's case (3) Whether, the provisions of Sub-section (4A) of Section 11, as substituted by Finance (No. 2) Act 1991 w.e.f. 01.4.1992 are clarificatory in nature and are hence applicable to the assessment years involved in these appeals (4) If the answer to the first question is in affirmative, does the earning of substantial profit by the assessee affect its status as a trust existing for an object of general public utility and consequently the claim for exemption Under Section 11, and if so, to what extent, in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Addl CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manuf...

inspecting Asstt. Cit and ors. Vs. Saurashtra Trust

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. Under Section 254(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Honble President had constituted a Special Bench, in this case, to consider the following questions: (1) Whether the object of the assessee trust is an object of general public utility under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, the provisions of Section 11(4A) introduced with effect from 1-4-1984 are applicable to assessees case (3) Whether, the provisions of Sub-section (4A) of Section 11, as substituted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991 with effect from 1-4-1992 are clarificatory in nature and are hence applicable to the assessment years involved in these appeals (4) If the answer to the first question, is in affirmative, does the earning of substantial profit by the assessee affect its status as a trust existing for an object of general public utility and consequently the claim for exemption under Section 11, and if so, to what extent, in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Surat Ar...

Bombay Environment Action Group and Sameer Mehta Vs. State of Maharash ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR235; 2007(1)BomCR721

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The 1st Petitioner herein is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is interested in the protection of environment in various parts of the country and particularly in the State of Maharashtra. It has taken steps from time to time for that purpose including filing proceedings in this High Court as well as in the Supreme Court. The 2nd Petitioner is a member of the 1st Petitioner. The present petition is concerning the protection of environment in the Mahabaleshwar and Panchgani twin hill stations. 2. (i) The 1st Respondent to this petition is the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Urban Development Department as well as the Secretary, Revenue & Forests Department. Respondent No.10 is the Town Planning and Valuation Department of the State Government through its various officers. The 2nd and the 3rd Respondents are Mahabaleshwar and Panchgani Municipal Council respectively, both governed under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Pa...

Goswami Shri Vallabhalalji Dwarkesh Lalji Maharaj, in His Personal Cap ...

Court: Mumbai

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai by its Judgment and Order dated 6th November 1987 allowed an appeal against the judgment of the Trial Judge by which a suit for eviction instituted by the Petitioner in 1968 was decreed on 11th August 1976. The judgment in appeal of the Court of Small Causes reversing the decree for eviction is called into question in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. By an Indenture of Lease dated 16th June 1927, the then Trustees of the City of Bombay granted a lease for a period of 999 years in respect of a plot of land admeasuring 6981 sq. yards at Naigaum within the City of Bombay to the father of the Petitioner. The lease came into effect from 30th November 1922. The Petitioner's father constructed three buildings consisting of a ground and a first floor on a portion of the land that was leased, leaving an open space admeasuring 3975 sq.yards. On 13th May 1967, a sub lease was executed by t...

Shrikrishna S/O Rupraoji Metkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR796; 2007(1)BomCR666; 2007(1)MhLj812

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Dissatisfied with the order dated 29-7-2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, in Original Application No. 2055 of 2002, the petitioner has challenged the same in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has held the applicant/petitioner not eligible for the pension.2. The petitioner had filed Original Application No. 2055/02 before the Tribunal stating therein that having been appointed in 1977 he came to be declared as quasi-permanent in 1980 and was transferred from Ratnagiri to Nagpur where he continued to serve till 2-6-1987. During his service at Nagpur he suffered from illness and, as such, due to ill-health he tendered his resignation on 2-6-1987 which eventually came to be accepted on 11-11-1987. A certificate was accordingly issued by the Department on 1-9-1999. Thus, the petitioner worked from 31-3-1977 to 1-6-1987 as Transmission Executive at All India Radio.3. It was the case of the petitioner that he, having complete...