Mumbai Court June 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.
The State of Maharashtra Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR506; 2008(5)BomCR933; (2008)110BOMLR2067; 2008(6)MhLj24
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Before we proceed to deal with the appeals in hand, we are called upon to decide civil application No. 5016 of 2001. This is an application filed on behalf of the respondentsclaimants in the appeals praying that they be permitted to lead additional evidence by allowing them to produce the judgment passed by the Joint District Judge, Nashik on 15th July, 1995 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 191 of 1988 with Land Acquisition Reference No. 192 of 1988 on record and the same be read in evidence. This application was filed on 31st October, 2001 and copy of the judgment dated 15th July, 1995 had been annexed to this application. Despite its pendency before the court for a long time, no reply on behalf of the State has been filed and, in fact, during the course of hearing, there was no serious opposition for grant of prayer made in this application. We are even otherwise satisfied that as per the averments made in the application, the judgment in Land Acquisition Ref...
C.R. Mawlankar Vs. the Victoria Jubilee, Technical Institute and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR215; (2008)110BOMLR1988
V.M. Kanade, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner on the basis of his service from 17.1.1949 to 1.4.1986 alongwith other consequential benefits as provided under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. Brief facts are as under:2. The Petitioner was appointed as Taxi Meter Testing Assistant on 23.12.1948 in the respondent No. 1 Institute. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 2.4.1985. He was granted extension for a period of one year and accordingly, he retired as a Foreman on 1.4.86. After his retirement, he made an application to the respondent No. 1 Institute claiming Provident Fund dues. In the said application, he also stated he was interested in opting pensionary benefits and he was willing to refund respondent No. 1's contribution to the Provident Fund alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. The pet...
Mrs. Sarita S. Melwani, Proprietress Carrying on Business in the Firm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR901; (2008)110BOMLR1997; (2009)ILLJ116Bom
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3969 of 2007 dated 30/11 / 2007 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition and confirm the order passed by the Industrial Court dated dated 12 /01 / 2007 passed in Revision Application (ULP) No. 267 of 2005 which, in turn, had confirmed the judgment and order of the 6th Labour Court, Mumabi dated 29 /10 / 2005 in Complaint (ULP) No. 838 of 2000.2. Brief facts are as under:3. Appellant is a Proprietress of the Establishment known as M /s Sarat India, registered under the Shops and Establishment Act and it was engaged in the manufacture of sale of melamine crockery. Respondent No. 1 & 2 were working with the appellant. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to as 'management' and the respondents shall be referred to as 'workmen'. The workmen were issued notices on 16/08/2000, informing them that t...
Prakash Kakubhai Rangwala Vs. Shri Nandlal, the Commissioner, State El ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR647; 2008(6)BomCR223
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner has filed the present Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :(A) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, direction or order directing to Respondent No. 1 to 3 and Hon'ble Small Causes Court, Bombay not to proceed to declare 2nd highest votes obtainer to be winner and/or hold Bye election for Municipal Councilor from Municipal Ward No. 114 at Surya Nagar, Chandan Nagar, Godrej Colony, Vikhroli East and West, Bombay 400 083, until the final disposal of the petition. (B) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3, their respective agents, servants and all the officer/authorities acting for them or Hon'ble Small Causes Court, Bombay or any of them be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from any manner whatsoever by declaring ...
Shrichand Girdharilal Punjabi Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mum ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR503; 2008(5)BomCR787; (2008)110BOMLR1938; 2008(5)MhLj397
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. While relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : AIR2007SC3180 , the petitioner prays that this Court may issue a writ of mandamus and declare as well that the plot of land admeasuring 345 sq.yard, situated on land bearing CTS No. 4 at village Gondavli, Andheri (East), Mumbai to be dereserved as the reservation has lapsed in terms of Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The petitioner claims that he had purchased this property on 18.11.1985 but he was not aware as to whether the property was reserved or not. According to the petitioner, the bigger plot adjoining to the land in question was reserved and in fact, had been developed by the respondents. On 4th February, 1992, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Developing Authority i.e. Assistant Welfare Commissioner and requested him to inform the petitioner about the fate of the said plot. The petitioner was asked to show the documents. Thereafter, the ...
Nilkamal Limited and anr. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mum ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR635; 2008(6)BomCR218; (2008)110BOMLR1943
V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are seeking appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent No. 1 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to disqualify the tenders submitted by Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 inter alia on the ground that they are in breach of the mandatory terms and conditions of the Tender Document and, secondly, for setting aside the decision taken by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in approving the tenders submitted by Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in the meeting held on 12 /09 /2007 and 05 /10 / 2007. The Petitioners are also seeking further directions that Respondent No. 1 be directed to take action against Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and to award contract to Petitioner No. 1. 2. Brief facts in a nutshell are as under:3. In August, 2007 Respondent No. 1 Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'MCGM') had floated tenders for supply of close HDPE refu...
Suraiya Akbarali Jetha, Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR640; 2008(5)BomCR127; (2008)110BOMLR2010
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. By this Judgment, we shall dispose of the above two Writ Petitions. In Writ Petition No. 1067 of 2007, the Petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the notice dated 22nd December 2003 and the acquisition proceedings taken by Respondent No. 4 in pursuance to the said Notification are illegal having lapsed in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Town Planning Act') in terms of Section 127 of the Act. They also prayed that the Respondents should be restrained from taking any action or steps in regard to acquisition and reservation of the land of which the Petitioners are the owners. This prayer has been made on the premise that the Petitioners and/or their predecessor in interest had purchased C.S. No. 565 of Mazgaon Division from the sellers in terms of the Deed of Conveyance dated 18th November 1943. Respondent No....
MartIn Lottery Agencies Ltd. Represented HereIn by Power of Attorney S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR627; 2009(1)BomCR381; 2008(5)MhLj409
R.C. Chavan, J.1. The petitioners, in these two petitioners, take exception to the forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- each, furnished by the petitioners while responding to the notice inviting tender for appointment of sole selling agents/distributors for sale of Goa State Lotteries. 2. The Government of Goa had invited tenders vide its Tender Notice dated 13.10.1999. In response to this notice, the petitioners in the two petitions submitted their offers and furnished sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- each, as Earnest Money Deposit. It is not in dispute that one M/s. Pavana Enterprises was the highest bidder whose offer was accepted by the State when the tenders were opened. On 18.11.1999, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 33/01 M/s. Anu Agencies had withdrawn their offer. M/s. Pavana Enterprises backed out on 2.12.1999. On the same day, the State Government offered distributorship to M/s. Anu Agencies which was second highest bidder, on condition that the distributorsh...
Shivaji Dattu Mang @ Nagarpole Vs. Krishna T. Kumbhar Since Deceased T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR105
Sayed A.A., J.1. This Petition is directed against the Order dated 31st July, 2007 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-3, Kolhapur, whereby the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay of 1964 days in preferring an appeal against the Decree dated 30th May, 1994 passed in Regular Civil Suit, came to be rejected.2. A common Judgment and Order is passed in 3 different suits and 3 different Appeals have been preferred by the petitioner therefrom. The above Writ Petition arises from rejection of Application of condonation of delay in one of the said 3 Appeals.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however, has pointed another Order dated 13th July, 2007, wherein another Judge of co-ordinate jurisdiction, on an application for the condonation of delay in preferring one of the Appeals out of the aforesaid three Appeals against the common Judgment and Order, has condoned the delay of the same number of days in filing appeal by imposing costs of Rs. 3,000/-. The facts in relati...
Baban Kondiba More and ors. Vs. Kashinath Maruti Kothule and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR333; 2008(5)BomCR678; 2008(6)MhLj828
Borde R.M., J.1. This is an appeal by original plaintiffs/decree holders raising challenge to the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 153/90 whereby the judgment and order passed in Final Decree Application No. 12/88 by the 3rd Jt. Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Ahmednagar dt. 16-6-1990 came to be set aside and application tendered by the decree holders/plaintiffs in respect of passing final decree came to be rejected.2. At the time of admission of second appeal this Court has framed following substantial question of law:Interpretation of Article 137 of the Limitation Act and Order 34, Rule 8(1) and (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure as considered by the Apex Court in the case of (K. Parameshwaran Pillai (dead) v. K. Sumathi alias Jesis Jessie Jacquiline and Anr.) reported in A.I.R. 1994 Supreme Court 191.While admitting the appeal, the Court was prima facie of the opinion that the judgment of lower Appellate Court was not in consonance with the law declared by the Apex Court....
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »