Mumbai Court October 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.
Vikramsing S/O Jalamsing Walvi and Uttam S/O Nimbha Deshmukh Vs. the S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR497; 2009(2)BomCR330
N.V. Dabholkar, J.01. As described in petition paragraph 2 and prayer Clause (B), the Petitioners have approached this court for a relief of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, directing Respondents-authorities and more particularly Respondent No. 2-State Election Commission to give effect to and strictly comply with The Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (henceforth referred to as 'PESA' for the sake of brevity), during ensuing elections of Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis, pertaining to Dhule and Nandurbar Districts.02. PESA, an Act of Parliament, received assent of the President, on 24th December 1996 and the objects and reasons for enacting the same can be read in the preamble which runs thus;An Act to provide for the extension of the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution relating to Panchayats to the Scheduled Areas.Part IX was inserted in the Constitution, by the Constitution (Seven...
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (Waghresea), Chief Promotor Mohant, View ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR16
S.B. Mhase and A.A. Kumbhakoni, JJ.1. About 114 years after the enactment of a law which is very commonly enforced and consequently very often analysed-reanalysed as also interpreted-reinterpreted by various Courts in the country, including the Supreme Court, in this group of matters, we have an occasion, for the first time since its enactment, to interpret the provisions of Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') as also pronounce upon the true and correct scope thereof. In the submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of all the parties in this group of matters, neither any High Court nor the Supreme Court previously had an occasion to deal with such an issue.2. The respondent herein, the Municipal Corporation of the city of Pune (hereinafter referred as the 'said Corporation' for the sake of brevity) established under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the BPMC Act' for the sa...
Abdul Rashid Khan Vs. Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR446; (2008)110BOMLR3580
K.K. Tated, J.1. In the present appeals, the appellants-original petitioners challenge common order dated 4.8.2008 passed by the Single Judge dismissing the appellant's Writ Petition. The appellant-original petitioner filed Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Notice under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 hereinafter referred to as M.R.T.P. Act (for brevity sake) issued by the Assistant Commissioner, H/East Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai in respect of unauthorized construction being adjacent to the building No. 1, Tata Colony, B.K. Road, Bandra (E), Mumbai-51. It is the case of the appellant that he is in possession of the suit premises for the last several years and not only that Municipal Corporation granted them permission to repair the said suit construction. It is the case of the appellant that the suit construction is not of a temporary nature but the same is constructed of bricks and RCC structure. It is th...
Peninsula Land Ltd. (Formerly Known as Morarjee Realties Ltd. and Prio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR519
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') reads as under :217. Appeals when and to whom to lie: (1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, appeals against any rateable value or tax fixed or charged under this Act shall be heard and determined by the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court.(2) But no such appeal shall be entertained by the said Chief Judge, unless(a) it is brought within fifteen days after the accrual of the cause of complaint;(b) in the case of an appeal against a rateable value a complaint has previously been made to the Commissioner under Section 163 as such complaint has been disposed of;(c) in the case of an appeal against a tax, or in the case of an appeal made against a rateable value the amount of the disputed tax claimed from the appellant, or the amount of the tax chargeable on the basis of the disputed rateable value, up to the date of filing of the appeal, has been deposit...
Bakerao S/O Rangrao Ulhe Vs. Ramkrishna Rajaram Kshirsagar Through Gua ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR535; 2009(3)BomCR889
S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. The appellant - original defendant, is taking exception to the judgment in R.C.A. No. 108/1997 rendered by the Additional District Judge, Achalpur on 24-09-2003, in an appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree in R.C.S. No. 07/1993 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati on 25-07-1997, by which he decreed the plaintiff - respondent No. 1's suit, for possession of the suit property bearing Survey No. 173/2 of Mouje Brahmanwada Thadi, admeasuring 4 acres and also declaring that the sale deed executed by Banabai Rajaram Kshirsagar in favour of defendant No. 1 and the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 Pandurang - present respondent No. 2 in favour of the appellant, was void and illegal. Needless to say that the appeal preferred by the present appellant was dismissed.2. Respondent No. 1 Ramkrishna had preferred a suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by deceased Banabai, in favour of original defendant No. 1 and the sale deed execu...
Ulhas Vasantrao Bagul @ Aba Bagul Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation, a Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR564
S.B. Mhase and A.A. Kumbhakoni. JJ.1. This petition is yet another case brought to this Court questioning recognition by a Mayor of a Municipal Corporation of a Municipal Councilor as 'a Leader of Opposition'. The petitioner also seeks writ of mandamus against the Mayor to recognise the petitioner, in place of the contesting respondent as a leader of opposition.2. The facts of the case are very few and can be set out as under. The 1st respondent herein is the Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for the sake of brevity) incorporated under the provisions of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act', for the sake of brevity). The 2nd respondent is the Commissioner of the said Corporation. 5th respondent is the Divisional Commissioner of Pune Revenue Division, Pune and the 6th respondent is the State.3. The general elections for electing counselors, of the said Corporation was conducted on 14th Feb...
In Re: Hariganga Alloys Steel Ltd. (In Liquidation) and ors. Etc. Etc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2008BusLR33(Bom); [2009]151CompCas405(Bom)
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. These 10 Applications are moved by legal heirs of deceased workers of Hariganga Steel & Alloys Ltd. - a Company in liquidation. Their prayer is to direct Official Liquidator to pay to them the amount of dividend as per his notice dated 26/3/2007 without insisting for production of succession certificate. They point out that official liquidator has worked out total entitlement of each worker in the proceeds of Company with him and as declared dividend payable to them at 14%. They state that after winding up orders, the respective worker has expired and being heirs, they are entitled to receive that payment from official liquidator without any succession certificate. Names of legal heirs in 7 Applications are submitted by official liquidator himself to this court along with his report while in remaining 3 matters, claimant - legal heirs are allowed to be brought on record by Division Bench in Company Appeal. During hearing it has also transpired that CAL No. 89 o...
Cosmosteels Private Limited Vs. Supermax International Pvt. Ltd. and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR896; 2009(2)BomCR276
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Petitioner - Original Defendant has challenged the impugned orders dated 30/08/2008 and 05/04/2007, whereby, the Courts below permitted the Respondents - Original Plaintiffs in a Suit for eviction and possession to place on record additional affidavit and documents. The Courts below after considering the material placed on record, though this Application was filed at the stage of evidence, permitted to file on record. The Application as filed, in the suit for eviction is essential for proper adjudication of the matter. These documents could not be produced at the earlier stage. Therefore, delay. But that itself cannot be the reason to discard such material. It is desirable that full opportunity required to be given to both the parties even if documents are placed at the belated stage or at the stage of Appeal on certain conditions. We cannot overlook that it is the Court to decide and adjudicate the issue/dispute between the parties. If for proper adjudication,...
Hanuman Deosthan and ors. Vs. Jaiwant Wasudeo Pullarwar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR543; 2009(3)BomCR883
Pangarkar C.L., J.1. This Second Appeal is at the instance of original plaintiffs. The suit was initially decreed by the trial Court but was dismissed by the first Appellate Court. The appellants and the respondents shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:There is a trust known as Hanuman Deosthan in Navi Shukrawari at Nagpur. One Bansilal Teli was the disciple of Haridas Baba. Haridasbaba took Samadhi some 70 years ago. The said Saint had a Math in house No. 873 Circle No. 3 at Nagpur. The Padukas (Foot Print) of the said Baba were installed in the said building and the Pooja was being offered there. The said Bansilal was the Chief Wahiwatdar of this Math. Before his death in 1944 he asked his wife Yashoda to look after and manage the Math Since he had grown old he had also directed that she should appoint a Panch Committee to manage the affairs of the said Math, she remaining one of the trustees. In 1946 Yash...
Trimbakrao Mugutrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR467
Rohee K.J., J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. The petitioner has moved the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondents to accord permission to the petitioner to sell the land.3. The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman. He served with the Indian Army from 11.10.1952 to 31.10.1980. He was made honorary Captain by the President of India. As the petitioner was not having his own land, sometime in June/July, 1972, he applied for allotment of land to Sub Divisional Officer, Khamgaon for allotment of land. 3.44 HR land, having land revenue of Rs. 14/- in Gat No. 152 situated at village Vihigaon, Taksil Khamgaon, District Buldana, was allotted to the petitioner.4. According to the petitioner, he is cultivating the said land continuously. However, because of his old age and as he is suffering from certain ailments like diabetes and back pain, he is unable to cultivate it pers...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »