Mumbai Court January 2008 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.
Perfect Machine Tools Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR200; 2008(2)MhLj404
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') empowers a planning authority, development authority or, as the case may be, any appropriate authority to acquire land which is required or reserved for any public purpose specified in any plan or scheme framed under the Act and after the publication of a draft regional plan. This acquisition could be by different modes specified under the provisions of the said section. A land which is allotted or designated for any specified purpose in any plan under the Act if not acquired within ten years from the date on which the final regional plan or final development plan comes into force and if the acquisition proceedings of such land under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced within the said period, it gives a right to the owner or any person interested in the land to serve a notice under Section 127 of the Act on the planning authority, development authori...
Denis Mazarello Vs. Iriton Mazarello and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR755; 2008(3)MhLj319
Britto N.A., J.1. Admit. By consent heard forthwith.2. Heard Shri Usgaonkar, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant/applicant in Special Inventory Proceedings No. 74/2005/A and Shri Anthony D'Silva, the earned Counsel on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 6.3. Inventory Proceedings were initiated by the appellant/applicant Denis Mazarello upon the death of his parents Shri Inacinho Mazarello and Smt. Annuciacao Mazarello, who left behind seven sons and three daughters. Respondent No. 1, Iriton Mazarello, now represented by learned Advocate Shri D'Silva, was appointed as the Administrator on 26/07/2006 and by application dated 26/07/2006, the said Administrator enlisted two properties surveyed under No. 376/10 and 384/4 of Velim Village, being immovable properties. Apparently, none of the other interested parties filed any application for exclusion of the said two properties as contemplated by Article 1383 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1939. Learned Advocate Shri Silva has dra...
Happy Home Estates Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR155; 2008(3)BomCR229; 2008(3)MhLj182
Kumar Swatanter, C.J.1. In furtherance to the order of this Court dated 21st February, 2007 in Civil Writ Petition No. 3160 of 2006, filed by the petitioners herein, the petitioners filed a representation before respondent Nos. 1 to 6 alleging that respondent No. 6 and its self-styled President and Secretary had no locus standi or right in relation to the property and/or its reconstruction in relation to non-cessed portion of the property in question. This representation dated 28th March, 2007 was disposed of by respondent No. 5 vide his order dated 11th July, 2007, whereby he rejected the representation of the petitioners and allowed respondent No. 6 to develop the property in question. It permitted the said respondent No. 6 to reconstruct the building with 4 FSI area, a joint venture project with third party builders/developers and submit their proposal for approval of respondent No. 1. This order of respondent No. 5 has been challenged in the present writ petition by the petitioners...
Rex Bakery Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ202Bom
Abhay S. Oka, J.1. Heard advocates appearing for the parties. Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:Whether the respondent-corporation was under an obligation to give an opportunity of being heard to the appellant before determining the amount payable by the appellant in accordance with Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948?Considering the controversy involved, the appeal is taken up for hearing.2. By the impugned judgment and order, an application made by the appellant under Section 75 of the said Act of 1948 for challenging an order passed on March 2, 1989 by the respondent under Section 45-A of the said Act of 1948 has been rejected by the learned Judge of the ESI Court.3. One of the submissions made before the learned trial Judge was that the appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard before passing an order under Section 45-A. While dealing with the said submission, in paragraph No. 19 of the impugned judgment, the learned tr...
Videocon International and ors. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR215; 2008BusLR269(Bom); [2009]151CompCas548(Bom); [2008]82SCL460(Bom)
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the petitions/applications have been finally heard at length. 2. This group of petitions/applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and/or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. raise a common grievance viz. that the complaints filed against the petitioners/applicants for the offences punishable under Section 24 read with Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ('the SEBI Act' for short) ought to be tried by the Court of Chief Metropolitan/Additional Chief Metropolitan/Metropolitan Magistrate in Mumbai rather than being committed to the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai, despite the SEBI (Amendment) Act, 2002 having been brought into force with effect from 29th October 2002 whereunder only the Court of Session can try the said offences and hence they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. The details of the compla...
Rama Narayan Mali Vs. Additional Collector and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR426; 2008(2)BomCR598; 2008(3)MhLj300
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. These Petitions are filed by a partner of the Firm and the Firm itself. The issues involved in these Writ Petitions are the same and hence they are dealt together. 2. The Petitioners in both the Petitions have challenged the judgment of the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai dated 27 th August, 1998, which is an order on a Review Application under Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC) marked Exhibit-U to the Petition. 3. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6373 of 1999 is an adivasi and owns the immovable property under Gat No. 150 admeasuring over 4 hectors out of which 2040 sq. meters of land (.20 gunthas) was brought into the partnership firm of the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4522 of 1998 on 10th October, 1989 for establishing a Stone Crusher thereon. Both these parties shall be referred to as Petitioner. The facts and dates in Writ Petition No. 6373 of 1999 need be first considered. 4. The Petitioner filed an applicatio...
Sahyadri Samanya Kamgar Sangh Vs. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. a Govt. of I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR803; 2008(3)BomCR214; [2008(117)FLR237]; (2008)IILLJ596Bom; 2008(3)MhLj505
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This Petition filed by the registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 brings in question the Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Mumbai on 4-10-1996 whereby and whereunder Reference No. CGIT-2/51/94 came to be dismissed.2. It was the union's case that the Respondent No. 1 which is an undertaking of the Union Government and engaged in the manufacturing of Thorium Chemical at its factory at Trombay and it required a large number of permanent workmen. Accordingly it had employed about 300 workmen in its factory and in addition it engaged temporary employees to do permanent and regular nature of work. The names of the workmen who were kept on temporary basis though engaged to do permanent nature of work were listed in Exhibit A and they were working in different categories like sweepers, cleaners and helpers. The Union claimed that all of them were qualified to be appointed on permanent basis as they possessed the required ...
Shri Sarjerao Bhaurao Ekal Vs. Shri S.K. Pant Walawalkar, Vice Preside ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR632; 2008(3)BomCR169; [2008(117)FLR233]; 2008(3)MhLj202
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the Judgment and Order dated 9/4/1996 rendered by the learned Member of the Industrial Court at Kolhapur thereby allowing Revision Application (ULP) No. 3 of 1995 and consequently the order passed by the Labour Court on 22/12/1992 holding that the Remand Home is an Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 came to be set aside. The Labour Court was further directed to return/dismiss Complaint (ULP) No. 150 of 1994.2. The present petitioner came to be employed as a Clerk-cum-Typist with effect from 6/1/1990 by Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan Remand Home, Kolhapur and the said Remand Home was being managed by the Zilla Parviksha Va Anuraksha Sanghatana (District Probation and After Care Association)(for short referred to as the Association). The said Association has its own constitution providing for its aims and objects which include the protection of the children's right...
Minoo R. Shroff and ors. Vs. Shiraaz D. Zilla and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR289; 2008(3)BomCR202; 2008(3)MhLj542
V.C. Daga, J.The Facts:1. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present petition for Letters of Administration with the Joint Will annexed thereto to the properties and credits of the late Pirojsha Pestonji Narielwalla and Mrs. Hirabai Pestonji Narielwalla. Mrs. Vaishali Vasudeo Ingle, duly Constituted Attorney and Legal officer of the petitioners/plaintiffs has filed an affidavit dated 28th June, 2007, in support of the Notice of Motion of which para 3 reads as under:3. I say that Mr. Pirojsha Pestonji Narielwalla and Mrs. Hirabai Pestonji Narielwalla executed a joint Will dated 21st December, 1978. Mr. Pirojsha Pestonji Narielwalla died on 22nd January, 1980, leaving his only sister Hirabai as his only heir and next of kin. Mrs. Hirabai Pestonji Narielwalla died on 12th September, 1981. There were no executors appointed under the Will and the residuary legatees were the Trustees of Parsi Panchayet Funds and Properties, Bombay. Accordingly, the then Trustees filed a Petition beari...
Smt. Leela Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Goa Through Its Chief Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR746; 2008(6)BomCR188; 2008(2)MhLj143
N.A. Britto, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.2. Th petitioner, in this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, inter alia, seeks a direction for restoration of the TBPS (Time Bound Promotional Scale) granted to the petitioner vide order dated 4/12/1989.3. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of the present petition. The petitioner was appointed as an LDC with respondent No. 2 on 19/08/1968 and was promoted as UDC on 1/12/1973. There is no dispute that she completed 12 years of service on 1/02/1985. She was offered a promotion to the post of Head Clerk, first, in the year 1986 and then in the year 1989 which the petitioner declined. Subsequently, she accepted the post of Head Clerk on 21/03/1990 and we are told that eventually she retired as 'Superintendent'.4. By virtue of memorandum dated 5/07/1989, the respondents brought in force what is known as 'Time Bound Promotional Scale Scheme' meant for group 'C' and 'D' employees and in order to have th...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »