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.
Central Hindu Military Social Education Society Vs. Joint Charity Comm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR499
Daga V.C., J.1. Rule in both petitions returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. These petitions, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the orders passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nashik and Pune rejecting applications filed under Section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (B.P.T. Act' for short). In both petitions parties are different but the legal contentions raised are common based on more or less similar basic facts, so this common judgment shall dispose of both these petitions.Facts in W.P. No. 6743/20073. The petitioner-Central Hindu Military Social Education Society is a Trust duly registered under the provisions of the B.P.T. Act owning properties one of which bearing Plot No. 11, Survey Nos. 710, 711, 714, Hissa No. 12, admeasuring 517.50 sq.mtrs. situate within the limits of the Nashik Municipal Corporation, Nashik ('said property' for short).4. The petitioner trust is running a Bhosala Military ...
Court on Its Own Motion Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR889; 2009(3)BomCR444
Joshi A.H., J.1. This Court had taken suo moto cognizance of news items of dangerous and dilapidated structures in the Nagpur City which were not, or could not be demolished. Pleadings are complete. Hence Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent.2. Various orders were passed by this Court from time to time directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to furnish:(a) Lists of Dangerous and Dilapidated Buildings, and(b) details of proceedings pending before various courts, due to which the work of removal of dangerous and dilapidated buildings could not be completed.3. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have furnished on record the Lists of Dilapidated Structures along with Lists of Cases pending in the form of:(i) appeals pending before the Deputy Municipal Commissioner.(ii) Cases pending before different courts.4. Respondent No. 4-Nagpur Improvement Trust has filed an affidavit, and has indicated that under Section 289 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, the statutory obliga...
ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. Baby Samuel and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR575; (2008)110BOMLR3715; 2009(1)MhLj1000
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Petitioners have challenged the Arbitration Award dated 15 th June, 2006 in this Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act). 2. The parties had entered into various contracts for various works connected with the setting up of a steel plant called Hot Strip Mill (HSM). 3. There were in all 2 contracts between the Petitioners and the Respondents and 2 contracts between the Petitioners' sister concern one M/s Ispat Metallics Industries Ltd. (IMIL) and the Respondents. Under the 2 contracts of the Petitioners certain additional works were required to be carried out as exigencies were created during the construction of the HSM. Those contracts were also given to the Respondents under certain work orders/letters of intent. The Respondents carried out those works also. 4. It has been the Petitioners case that the Respondents failed to carry out the work covered under the contracts and yet demanded the payment. It is the Respo...
Swanston Multiplex Cinemas P. Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR580; 2009(2)BomCR298; (2008)110BOMLR3667; 2008BusLR61(Bom)
J.N. Patel, J.1. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus by way of an order and direction for setting aside the impugned notices and orders referred to in Exhibit A-1, Exhibit A-2 and Exhibit - M by declaring them as null and void. Further, they have sought declaration that the Circular Exhibit - L is ultra virus the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1983 and seek to quash and set aside the same or such portion thereof including Clause 3.2 (e) and that the duty paid by the petitioner is correct amount of duty and the petitioner's liability to pay duty as per their claim specified in para F(c) should be held to be correct and form the correct basis for calculating Entertainment Duty payable by the petitioner along with other ancillary reliefs.2. The petitioner is interalia engaged in the business of operating a multiplex theatre named as FAME ADLABS in the city of Mumbai at Andheri. It is the petitioner's contention that on the basis of the statements and objects of the Ordinance and on th...
Geeta N. Shivdasani Vs. Niraj T. Sharma and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR274
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. Heard finally. The petitioner has challenged the concurrent findings and orders based upon the same passed by the authorities under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act), whereby she has been directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of residential premises i.e. Flat No. 406, Yeshwant Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Juhu-Versova Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053, to the respondent/original applicant and further directed to pay the damages at the rate of Rs. 30,800/- per month from 1.2.2006 till handing over of possession.2. The respondent/applicant has initiated eviction proceedings under Section 24 of MRC Act on account of failure of petitioner to vacate the same after expiry of licence period. The parties have led evidence. The issues were framed. After considering the material as well as evidence led by the parties, the Competent Authority has held that the petitioner is licensee and the respondent is licensor; the licence...
Shri Uday Narayan Apate and anr. Vs. Shri Shankar Ragho, Bhadavankar a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR814; 2009(1)MhLj377
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petition challenges the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Case No. MRT/KP/31/91 in which the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Gadinglaj in Tenancy Appeal No. 42 of 1990. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:One Laxmibai was the owner of Gat No. 437 and 450. She died without leaving behind any issue. Heirship proceedings were initiated before the District Court, Kolhapur under the Bombay Regulation Act in respect of her property. In these proceedings, Narayan Apte was declared the heir of Laxmibai. While the heirship proceedings were pending, the management of the property was taken over by the Nazir of the District Court who was appointed as the Court Receiver. Narayan Apte the father of Petitioner No. 1 was put in possession and a Kabje Patti or possession receipt was executed on 31.5.1959 and the relevant mutation entries were made in the record of rights. The names of Narayan Apte and the ...
Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR873
Sinha D.D., J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Manohar and Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Gordey, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, and Shri Thakur, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4.2. Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is a limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and deals in manufacture and sale of steel alloys. The establishment of the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1946'). There are six hundred permanent employees in the employment of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that it has outsourced some of its peripheral activities to various Contractors, who employ their own employees for the purpose of execution of work under contract under...
Mohd. Aziz Ul Haq Since Deceased Through Lrs., Dr. Mohib S/O Mohammad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj482
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. It is to be noted that these proceedings were initially filed as Civil Revision Application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, read with Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. When the matter was called out on 29-8-2008, this Court has in view of the judgment in the case of Dilip Bidesh v. Shiv Gopal reported at : 2005(6)BomCR207 , found that said revision was not maintainable. The revision applicant then sought permission to convert revision into a writ petition and that permission was accordingly granted by reasoned order, after noticing the fact that revision was filed way back in 1995 and the matter was going on before various Courts since 1986.2. After conversion of revision into present writ petition, the matter has been again listed for final hearing. Shri Panpalia, Advocate, who had filed Vakalatnama for the respondent, has stated that on 24-1-2002 itself, he filed pursis vide Stamp No. 679 of 2002, seeking leave to withdraw...
Ranjan Lakule Vs. Council of Architecture India Habitant Centre and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR479
Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule. Rule by consent heard forthwith.2. The petitioner has approached this Court praying for relief by way of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the constitution of the Disciplinary Committee, constituted by the respondent No. 1 to inquire into the allegations contained in letter dated 30th January, 2008, addressed by the respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 1.3. A few facts may be set out. The petitioner is a qualified architect and is registered with the Council of Architecture, respondent No. 1 herein. The petitioner in the year 1984 obtained Bachelor's degree in the first class. He was a Gold Medalist. In the year 2000 the petitioner obtained Post Graduate Degree of Master of Architecture. In 2003 the petitioner obtained On-Line Ph.D. degree from Ashwood University, America.4. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is in practice since 1984 and continued to do so till 2004 and was working as an Architect at Sangli, Kolhapur ...
Premier Irrigation Equipment Ltd. and anr. Vs. Maharashtra Tourism Dev ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR464
Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. Respondent No. 1-Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation (M.T.D.C.) respondent No. 1 had issued a tender notice dated 1st October, 2007 inviting bids for setting up of Musical Dancing Fountains. The petitioners accordingly submitted their tender. According to the petitioners as they had complied with all the requirements their tender was found to be in order. The tender had to be submitted in two parts. The technical bid were scheduled to be opened on 2nd November, 2007. The petitioners were, however, informed over telephone that the bids will be opened on 19th November, 2007. Though Envelope B was to be opened only on the tenderer being found eligible after opening of Envelope-A, in the instant case, however, both Envelop A and Envelope B were opened on the same day. Respondent No. 5 had not submitted the CD. as per the tender documents. Respondent No. 5 in terms of the affidavit filed by Subodh Kinalekar for respondent No. 1, had on the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »