Mumbai Court July 2008 Judgments
Avinash Laxman Kandalgaonkar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR89
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The petitioner who claims to be a social activist and General Secretary of North Mumbai District Congress Committee has brought this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and other public authorities be directed by writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to demolish the illegal construction raised on plot No. 256/257 which has been reserved for Municipal Primary School under the relevant plan and rules. It is averred in the petition that the cost of education is increasing every passing day and the reservation for the purposes of Municipal Primary School is to achieve the object of protection of fundamental right available to the children to have free education. The authorities are bound to construct the Municipal Primary School at CTS Nos.256 and 257 of Malad Village at R/South Ward at Kandivali, North Mumbai to ensure that poor people of nearby areas are able to get educa...
Tag this Judgment!Madhu V. Holamagi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Additional Soli ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR94; 2009(1)BomCR722; (2008)110BOMLR2471; 2009(1)MhLj215
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate in Mumbai and claims that he was the President of Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court Bar Association and a social activist, has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present Public Interest Litigation. While referring to the great leaders of the Nation and the freedom struggle during the British rule prior to 1947, it is contended by the Petitioner that during the crisis the U.S.S.R. was the supporter and Pakistan and U.S. could not succeed in dividing India and/or destroying the economy of India. Referring to the present Government at the Centre as a coalition Government, it is averred by the Petitioner that the economy of the country is progressing and however there is complete confusion, insecurity with regard to the existence and continuation of the Government because of nuclear deal with the U.S. which is being opposed by various parti...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR65; 2009(1)MhLj856
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Common, but, question of some significance in law arises for consideration of the court in all these Appeals. Despite liberal construction of application of law of amendment in Appeals before the Court of competent jurisdiction, we are called upon to determine the issue, as to whether the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are applicable to the proceedings including the Appeal proceedings arising under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and if the answer is in the affirmative, what is the scope and limitation of such application. To examine various facets of this, reference to the facts giving rise to these Appeals would be necessary.2. Vide its judgments dated 4th May 1996, 17th January 1997, 22nd August 2005 and 29th August 2005, the Joint District Judge, Raigad at Alibaug, answered 23 Land References made to it by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act. Aggrieved from the enhancement granted under the impugned judgments, the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Lokhandwala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Previous Known as Lokhandwala Bu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR743
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Where some of the buildings constructed prior to 1940 on a large municipal plot are occupied by the tenants, whether the Municipal Corporation would be justified in permitting the developer appointed by the tenants to redevelop the entire plot under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 instead of permitting redevelopment either by subdividing the plot or developing the plot under Regulation 33(9) is the question raised in this petition.2. The dispute in the present case relates to the redevelopment of a large plot belonging to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation ('Corporation' for short) admeasuring 12130.07 sq. mtrs. bearing C.S. No. 17/47 (part) of Lower Parel Division situated at Dr. E.Moses Road, Worli Naka, G/South Ward, Mumbai - 400 018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'plot in question').3. On the plot in question, the Corporation had constructed several buildings prior to 1940, some of which are occupied by the municipal tenan...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR497; [2008(119)FLR224]; (2008)IIILLJ964Bom
A.P. Deshpande, J.1. These Letters Patent appeals involved a common question of fact and Law and hence the Appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Few facts that are relevant for adjudication of the issues are narrated hereinbelow. The appellant in all these appeals is the State of Maharashtra, through The Dairy Manager, Government Milk Scheme, Chiplun who appointed the respondents herein as daily wagers in the establishment of the dairy on payment of Rs. 81.29 Ps. per day. The respondents daily wagers have been in service of the appellant for a longer period running between 12 to 20 years. As the respondents were not granted permanency in service, they filed a complaint before the Industrial Court under Item 5, 6 and 9 of Scheduled IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act 1971. It was contended before the Industrial Court that the daily wagers were not granted permanency with an object to deprive them of the benefits of permanencny which is an unfair l...
Tag this Judgment!Prs Permacel Private Limited Vs. Johnson and Johnson Employees Union a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR505; (2008)IIILLJ973Bom
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. PRS Permacel Private Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the order of reference dated June 22, 2007 as illegal, invalid, arbitrary and violative of. Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, thus, the same be set aside as not even being maintainable. Besides seeking striking down of the said order, it has also been prayed that the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai be also directed not to proceed with the reference proceedings in furtherance to the order dated June 22, 2007. The challenge to the order dated June 22, 2007, inter alia is on the following grounds:(a) There is no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and members of the respondent No. 1. Thus, no reference could be made by respondent No. 2 and could not be proceeded...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Alias Prabhakar Lawanis and ors. Vs. Arun Gajanan Lavanis and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj754
ORDERN.A. Britto, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the Order dated 26-3-2008 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Bicholim.By the said order, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, has rejected the application filed by Suresh Lavanis, Rajnikant Lavanis and Anil Lavanis, to exclude seven properties referred to in para 5(i) to (vii) of the List of Assets filed by the Administrator/Cabeca de Casal in the Inventory Proceedings No. 23/2000, which are pending before the said Court upon the death of the Inventoried/ inventariados Govind Atmaram Lavanis and his wife Sitabai Govind Lavanis.Some more facts are required to be stated to dispose off the present appeal2. The said Govind and Sitabai had four sons and one daughter and the latter has relinquished her share in the estate in favour of her four brothers, namely Gajanan, Kashinath, Sripad and Mohan. The said Gajanan died first and upon his death his son Arun initiated Inventory Proceedings bearing No. 31/96 and in the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra S/O Maroti Deotare and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj699
K.J. Rohee, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. The petitioners were arrested on 13-4-2008 in connection with Crime No. 73/2008 under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code alleged to have taken place on 10-4-2008. The petitioners were produced before the concerned Magistrate on 14-4-2008. Initially the Magistrate granted P.C.R. till 19-4-2008. From 19-4-2008 M.C.R. came to be extended from time to time. The last application for M.C.R. was moved on 30-6-2008 praying for grant of M.C.R. till 15-7-2008. However the Magistrate granted M.C.R. only till 14-7-2008.It is undisputed that 90 days expired on 13-7-2008, which happened to be a Sunday. On the next day i.e. on Monday 14th July, 2008 the petitioners moved application under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in default of filing of the charge-sheet. The said application was filed by the petitioners at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate directed the A.P...
Tag this Judgment!Sarva Shramik Sanghatana and ors. Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR887]; (2009)ILLJ658Bom
1. The order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on March 28, 2007 in Writ Petition No. 79 of 2007 is under challenge in this appeal. By the said order, the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ Petition filed by the Appellant in limine.2. The Petitioner is a Union registered under the Trade Unions Act. The Respondent No. 1 is an employer dealing in dying and manufacturing of the cotton and is therefore, being textile industries as covered under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'B.I.R. Act' for short). The Respondent No. 2 namely Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh is registered representative Union in the Textile Industries and therefore, is entitled to represent and negotiate with the problems of the employees with Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 was in difficulty. Inspite of the several measures taken by Respondent No. 1 to stand in competition, the Respondent No. 1 has incurred continuous losses and therefore, their activities...
Tag this Judgment!National Aviation Company of India Ltd. Vs. Amit Kumar S/O Nibal Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR521; [2008(119)FLR235]; (2008)IIILLJ925Bom
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This is a writ petition by the employer challenging the order of the National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, dated August 19, 2004 rejecting their application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The petitioner-employer sought approval of its order dated June 24, 2002 whereby respondent-workman was removed from service. The workman was served with charge sheet dated April 4/May 1, 1996 for allegedly unauthorisedly opening the Short Haul Operations Department (S.H.O.D.) office with a view td disposal of the old vehicles of the office. According to the charge sheet he was apprehended in the process of removing one jeep with the help of two other persons. He had already removed six vehicles, i.e. two Maruti 800, one Ambassador car, one Matador and two jeeps. Since the dispute pertaining to conditions of service of workmen of Indian Airlines was pending before the National Tribunal, the petitioner applied under Section 33(2)(b) for removing the resp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »