Mumbai Court September 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.
Harivadan C. Dhagat Vs. the Insurance Regulatory and Development Autho ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR593; 2008(1)BomCR140; 2008(2)MhLj469
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Though there is challenge raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to Regulation 14 of Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors (Licensing, Professional Requirements and Code of Conduct) Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter 'the Regulations'), as well as to the circulars issued by the respondents dated 11th September, 2001, 4th December, 2002 and 24th May, 2003 laying down the financial limits for the purpose of categorization of the surveyors/loss assessors and for quashing the letter 15th May, 2006, in so far as it directs the petitioner to pass the examination conducted by the Insurance Institute of India, it may not be necessary for us to either discuss the facts in great detail or examine the merits or otherwise of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, in view of the course we propose to adopt in disposing of the present writ petition.2. The petitioner is a Cha...
Mr. Prafulla C. Dave and ors. Vs. the Municipal Commissioner, Pune Mun ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR207; 2007(6)BomCR520; 2008(3)MhLj120
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The subject matter is land identified under Survey No. 125A/4B/2, admeasuring about 83 Ares, situated at village Aundh, Dist. Pune. The land had been kept under reservation for the public purpose of a garden in the development plan of Pune notified on 8th July, 1966. The said reservation for garden purpose was continued as per new revised Development Plan dated 5th January, 1987, draft plan of which was published in 1982. The petitioners had purchased the land from the original owners Wakde and others in the year 1989. The Pune Municipal Corporation it is stated had taken no steps for acquisition of the said land within the period of 10 years from the year 1966. The present petitioners filed a Writ Petition No. 5467 of 1989 on 29th August, 1989 for deletion and/or de-reservation of the said land from the designated public purpose i.e. garden. After filing of the petition under legal advice, the petitioners served the purchase notice dated 5th...
Abdul Hassan Khan Proprietor of Garib Nawaz Corporation Vs. State of M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj373
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 17th July 2007 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the contract for recovery of entrance fee from vehicle drivers, who enter from three check nakas of Goregaon, Powai and Marol respectively in Aarey Milk Colony has been extended for a period of 3 years with effect from 17th February 2005 by increasing the contract amount by 5% as also inviting fresh tenders for the said contract. 3. The petitioner, who claims to be a reputed contractor and who has undertaken various contracts for management and maintenance, submitted a tender in response to the notice dated 30th December 2001 inviting tenders issued by the State Government. The tender related to the management of three toll naka points within the Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (East)...
Prakash Jayawant Koli Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Indu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR198; 2008(1)BomCR196; (2007)109BOMLR2140; (2008)IILLJ917Bom; 2008(2)MhLj511
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides.1. In this petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 24th January 2007 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane. The challenge is on the ground that there was no evidence before the Scrutiny Committee to come to the conclusion that the caste certificate was obtained by misrepresentation or otherwise and the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit thereof. It is also argued on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from the non application of mind and no proper reasons have been recorded while passing that order.2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli caste. On 2nd November 1982 the caste certificate was issued by the Executive Magistrate, Uran, Raigad, certifying that the petitioner belongs to Mahadeo Koli caste. This ce...
Indian Airport Employees Union Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Mi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ20Bom
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The petitioner is a registered trade union, registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The petitioner claims to be representing the workers in the Mumbai Airports and the present petition relates to the cause of 11 (eleven) workmen, who were working as sweepers in the staff colony of the Airport Authority of India at Sahar, Mumbai.2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3, who is the statutory authority, had entered into an agreement with respondent No. 4 as a Joint Venture Company in respect of operating of Mumbai Airport. Until April, 2006, the Mumbai Airport was exclusively operated and run by respondent No. 3. Thereafter as a result of the agreement, the right to operate, maintain, develop, design, construct, modernise, etc., was given to respondent No. 4, whilst respondent No. 3 retained certain limited functions with them. Amongst other, respondent No. 3 was to procure and ensure that the employees perform such functions...
Bhalchandra Vithoba Barne and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Office ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)MhLj608
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the respondents. None present for the petitioners.2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the acquisition of their land and the award dated 23rd September, 1986 passed by the respondent No. 1 as illegal. The land in question was acquired for Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority (respondent No. 4). A notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and the award was passed on 23rd September, 1986. The petitioners have challenged the award on the following grounds:(i) That the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was not made within a period of two years of the commencement of the amending Act which came into force on 24th September, 1984. Therefore, making of the award is invalid.(ii) The award was not made actually on 23rd September, 1986 but was made subsequently and the award has been ante dated.(iii) Notice of the making of the award was not given to the petitioners within two years af...
Pragi Bharat Vankiani Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR603; 2007(6)BomCR529; 2008(2)MhLj241
Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The Petitioner is a student of Standard VI at the M.D. Bhatia English Medium High School at Ghatkopar (East). At the annual examination held in March 2007, the petitioner was declared to have failed. The petitioner's father took up the matter with the Education Department and eventually, instituted these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relying on Appendix 7 of the Secondary Schools Code, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the School and sought promotion to Standard VII.2. Affidavits in reply have been filed in these proceedings by the Deputy Education Inspector, by the Management of the School and by the student. On behalf of the Management, a preliminary objection has been taken to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the management is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In the view which we have taken, it is not necessary for us to consider that objection since even on merits...
Sangli Zilha Shikshan Vikas Mandal and anr. Vs. Shankar Baburao Mali a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR105; 2008(1)BomCR309; 2008(1)MhLj764
Mhatre Nishita, J.1. The petition challenges the order of the School Tribunal dated 9.12.1997 in Appeal No. 232 of 1996. By this order, the Tribunal has held that the action of the petitioners declaring that respondent No. 1 had been discontinued from service is illegal. Respondents i.e., the petitioners herein, were directed to continue the respondent No. 1 teacher in service from 1993 onwards. The Tribunal issued a further direction that respondent No. 1 should be subjected to a medical examination for the hearing deficiency which the management claimed he suffered from.2. The facts in brief are as follows:On 20.8.1993, the petitioners informed respondent No. 1 who was employed with them from 10.6.1990 that the complaints had been received from pupils of the school and their parents that respondent No. 1 was hard of hearing and therefore, was easily irritated when his queries were not answered by the pupils. The petitioners called upon the respondent teacher to get himself examined f...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs Vs. Mukul S. Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: 2008[10]STR115
ORDER1. The main contention as urged on behalf of the revenue is that considering Section 76 of the Central Excise Act the authorities had to impose the penalty as set out therein and there was no discretion to impose lesser penalty. After considering Section 80, we find that such a discretion is vested in the authority.In the light of that, in our opinion, no substantial question of law arises. Hence, the appeal is dismissed....
Andhra Bank Vs. Silver Line Technologies Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: [2008]143CompCas458(Bom)
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner-bank have invoked the provisions of Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, as in spite of the receipt and service of statutory notice dated October 17, 2002, exhibits 'C' and 'D' the respondent-company failed to make the payment of the amount due and payable to the tune of Rs. 26,35,00,000 (rupees twenty six crores and thirty five lakhs only).The petitioner is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, having its office at Andhra Bank Building, Sultan Bazar, Hydrabad-500 195, and the company above named, i.e., Silver Line Technologies Ltd., is a company duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), having its registered office at No. 1405, Maker Chamber-V, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'company').2. The main objects for which the company is incorporated are, inter alia, to design, develop, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »