Mumbai Court June 2007 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.
Satish Nambiar Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Ministry of Home Affa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Bom158; 2007(5)ALLMR259; 2007(5)BomCR247
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard counsel appearing for parties.2. The Central Government issued Overseas Citizen of India registration card bearing No. A 0202250 and life long Visa Sticker No. U-020250 dated 18th May, 2006 to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 7A(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which was cancelled in public interest under the provisions of Section 7D(e) of the Citizenship Act vide order dated 14th February, 2007. The petitioner, Shri Satish Nambiar, in this petition challenges the legality and propriety of this order, inter alia, on the following grounds:(i) The petitioner was entitled to a hearing prior to passing of the order dated 14th February, 2007, which apparently is prejudicial to his interest; and withdraws the benefits granted to him in accordance with law;(ii) The impugned order is not preceded by any enquiry and suffers from the element of non-application of mind a...
Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi Vs. the Security Guards Board for ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)BomCR405; (2007)109BOMLR1381
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. By this common judgment we will dispose of the above five petitions, as they base identical question of law on somewhat similar facts. It is not necessary for us to deal with the facts of each case in greater detail. It will be suffice to refer to the facts of Writ Petition No. 585 of 2007.2. The petitioner is a union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, hereinafter referred to as the 'Unions Act'. The security guards mentioned in Exhibit A to the petition are the members of the petitioner union. They are employed for watch and ward duty in the establishment of respondent No. 2, through its contractor respondent No. 3. The attendance muster in respect of the security guards for the month of October 2006 are being maintained and have annexed to this petition as Exhibits B, B1, and B2. In terms of the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', respondent No. ...
Warana Education Society Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR762; 2008(3)BomCR476; (2007)109BOMLR1264; 2007(4)MhLj785
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The petitioner is an educational institution that claims to have been established in the year 1968 at Sagaon, Taluka Shirala, District Sangli. The purpose and aim of the society is to start schools in the vicinity for spreading education in rural areas. The petitioner is running a school at village Kandoor, Taluka Shirala, District Sangli, which was started with the permission from the Government and even grant-in-aid was given. Initially the school was having classes upto 8th standard and gradually classes upto 11th standard were started. The school is being run under the name of Shree Datta Vidyalaya. The population of the village has increased. There is another village by name Punawat at a distance of about 1-1/2 K.M from the village Kandoor. The students of that village used to take education in the school in question. From the academic year 1990, the Deputy Director and Director of the Education-officers of respondent No. 1, granted permission to respondent...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sat Dev Prakash
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Bom179; 2007(5)ALLMR272; 2007(5)MhLj570
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The appropriate Government issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' on 3rd February, 1970 intending to acquire land admeasuring about 54,650 square meters, being Plot Nos. 6 and 7 situated at village Ambetarkhar, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, vide his Award dated 21st December 1984, awarded Rs. 10 per square meter as compensation payable to the claimants. Dissatisfied by the said Award, the claimants preferred References under Section 18 of the Act claiming higher compensation. The learned District Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Land Reference No. 172 of 1986 enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants to Rs. 90 per square meter and also granted other statutory benefits permissible under law. The claimants, still dissatisfied by the judgment of the trial Court dated 11th October 1988, filed First Appeal (Land Acquisition) No. 568 of 1989 for further enhancemen...
Air India CabIn Crew Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR739; (2008)ILLJ63Bom
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 6th March, 2007 issued by respondent No. 3 for and on behalf of respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) by which the crew complement is rationalised in the manner stipulated in the same.3. The crew complement as stipulated was effective from 15th March, 2007. The present petition was filed on 13th March, 2007. An application for urgent ad-interim order was made before the Division Bench of this Court on 14th March, 2007. This Court directed that the impugned order should not be acted upon. This ad-interim order is continuing till date.4. The factual backdrop is as under:5. The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act. Respondent No. 2, Air India Limited, is a Government Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. According ...
Jitendranath Nayer Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)BomCR167; (2007)109BOMLR1253
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule in Writ Petition No. 303 of 2007. Respondents waive service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Both sides agree that any order passed in this petition would cover writ petition No. 44 of 2002. That petition is also placed on board for hearing by consent of parties.2. The first petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 18th August, 2006, a copy of which is annexed as annexure 'I' (page 99) to the petition. By this order the respondents imposed upon the petitioner the penalty of 'Removal from service' which shall not be disqualification for future employment'. This penalty is imposed in terms of Rule 23(f) of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975. The consequence of the punishment, according to the respondents, is that the name of the petitioner is struck off from the roll of the company with immediate effect.3. That the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing ...
Shri G.S. Rathore Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Through the Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR252; 2007(5)BomCR377; 2007(6)MhLj313
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides.1. Within the circumscribed limitation of law, The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', is a self contained Code and the administrative tribunal constituted thereunder is to prescribe its procedure under the provisions of the Act. What is the ambit and scope of the procedure and powers of the tribunal, as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act, is simple but a pertinent question of law arises for consideration of the Court in the present case. Section 22 of the Act reads as under:22. Procedure and powers of Tribunal:(1) A Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules made by the Central; Government, the Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure ...
Anupama Naik Vs. the Standard Chartered Bank,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR278; 2007(4)BomCR549
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. On the statement of one Mr. Anand P. Patankar, on 6th May, 2005, Dadar Police Station registered F.I.R. No. 289 of 2005 under Section 360 of the Indian Penal Code. It was recorded that he was a retired employee, and had taken a debit card of the Standard Chartered Bank, Shivaji Park, Dadar, and was using the said card. After the expiry of the card, he received a letter from the bank that they are going to send another card. Somewhere on 23rd August, 2005, he received a letter along with Personal Identification Number (PIN) for the same card; and on 3rd September, 2005, as he needed money, he gave his daughter a cheque of Rs. 5,000/-for withdrawing. In his statement, there are unauthorised withdrawals shown for different amounts, on 27th August, 2005, Rs. 20,000/-and Rs.5,000/-; on 28th August, 2005, Rs. 25,000/-; on 29th August, 2005, Rs. 25,000/-; and on 30th August, 2005, Rs.25,000/-, totaling a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which had been withdrawn from the bank's A...
Shridhar C. Shetty Vs. the Additional Collector and Competent Authorit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR425; 2007(6)MhLj12
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Vide order dated 15th October, 2005, the Addition Collector and Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 [hereinafter, for short, referred to as 'the Act'], Bombay, requested the Collector, Bombay Suburban District, to recover a sum of Rs.51,97,196/-plus interest, penalty and recovery expenses as land revenue from the persons in respect of 7 tenements admeasuring 269.76 square metres each and also provided the complete details thereof. In the said order, it was stated that the developer had constructed the building on C.T.S. Nos. 261 (Part) and 245 (Part), Mauje, Taluka Borivali. He was to hand over the possession of 7 tenements to the Government nominees, but without adhering to the same, the developer sold the flats in open market. Complaint bearing No. 111 of 2005 was filed with the Senior Inspector of Police of the concerned police station on 23rd June, 2005. Vide order dated 30th April, 2005, the developer and owner, both,...
Dr. Akshatha Divakar Prabhu and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra Thro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)BomCR102
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. We had in our order dated 3rd May, 2007 indicated that the arguments of both sides have concluded and the cases are closed for judgment. We issued certain directions by our said order. We also enquired from Counsel a sto whether with these directions the petitions can be disposed off. However, the counsel for petitioners submitted that the legal issues raised be decided as they may arise in future as well.2. Accordingly, Rule in both petitions. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. These petitions are instituted by students, who having passed their H.S.C. (12th standard examination) were admitted to M.B.B.S. Course in the respective medical colleges. They completed four and half years M.B.B.S. course and underwent one year compulsory internship. Thus, they are eligible to pursue their post graduate studies in medicine and other faculties. However, for that purpose, they have to appear at the 'Common Entrance Test' conducted b...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »