Mumbai Court July 2008 Judgments

Rajesh Bahvantrao Deshmukh and ors. Vs. Solapur Municipal Corpn. and a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR660

Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. The argument of the petitioners that the interim relief has been wrongly refused by the Appellate Court, even though the Appeal is pending, at the first blush, seems to be attractive. However, in the fact situation of the present case, the order passed by the trial Court which has been upheld by the Appellate Court for the limited purpose of considering interim relief during the pendency of appeal, does not warrant any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. This is so because, the petitioners were conscious of the fact that even for putting up a fencing, it was necessary to seek prior approval of the Corporation. The petitioners did apply to the Corporation in that behalf, which request was rejected. The petitioners, however, without formal approval from the Corporation, unilaterally proceeded to erect fencing around the building on the assumption that the portion where the fencing has been put up is within the boundary of ...

Prabhakar Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2008)DMC493

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by which the original accused challenges the judgment and order dated 15th January, 2007 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2005. By the impugned judgment the appellant is held guilty for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months. No separate sentence is imposed for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The incident in question took place on 29.3.2005 at about 9.00 p.m. at Holi, Taluka Omerga, in front of house of the accused. The victim Babybai was wife of the accused and the marriage is more than ten years old.As per story that unfolds from two dying declarations (Exhibits 14 and 18), while the victim was sleeping in yard/verandah of the house, the accused came home in drunke...

Ankush R. Naik Vs. Sujata Sanzgiry and Mr. Shaikh Akbar Ali

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR198; (2008)110BOMLR2154

N.A. Britto, J.1. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith.2. Challenge in this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, is to the order dated 25/06/2008, by which fresh warrant of possession has been issued against the petitioner.3. The petitioner is a judgment debtor in execution proceedings No. 53/94/A and, shall be hereinafter referred to as such. An award between the D.H and J.D was made rule of the Court by decree dated 3/06/1994 which reads as follows:The defendant is hereby directed and within a period of 15 days from this date to convey the suit flat in favour of the plaintiff together with the proportionate undivided right in the land where the suit plot stands by a duly registered Deed of Sale in her favour along with the delivery of possession thereof to the plaintiff on payment of the balance amount of Rs. 1.7 lacs, by the plaintiff to the defendants.4. The Decree holder filed the execution application on 28/08/1994, inter alia, praying for a warrant of possession, ...

Shri Laxman Mahadu Nigrose Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR450; 2008(6)MhLj629

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Both these Appeals arise from the very same Award passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Raigad on 17/10/1989 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 67 of 1987. First Appeal No. 118 of 1991 has been filed by the claimant whereas First Appeal No. 614 of 1991 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra and, therefore, both these appeals are being decided by a common judgment.2. The agricultural land located in Gat No. 79 Hissa No. 15 and Gat No. 68 Hissa No. 1 at village Barvai, Tal.Panvel, Dist. Raigad was under acquisition in terms of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitions Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) on 13/12/1984 and from the ownership of the claimant an area admeasuring 17900 sq. mtrs. was sought to be acquired by the said notification. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 13/6/1985 and final award under Section 11 of the said Act was declared on 23/9/1985 by the Land Acquisition Officer. He had fixed the...

Suhash S/O. Vishwanath Kolapkar Vs. the Assistant Collector and the Ch ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2491; 2009(2)MhLj50

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.2. As common question of law is raised in these two writ petitions they are being decided by this common judgment.3. Rule returnable forthwith. The counsel appearing for the respondents waive service of rule. By consent, the matters are taken up for final hearing.4. The petitioners challenge the orders dated 18-12-2007 passed by the competent authority - the Resident Deputy Collector Ahmednagar in Eviction Case No. 1/2007 and Eviction Case No. 2/2007 and the judgments and orders dated 11-4-2008 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal Nos.1 of 2008 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2008.5. The petitioners claim to be lessee of the premises owned by the Municipal Council Rahuri. The petitioners were given premises / shops on rent. The Municipal Council Rahuri issued notice to the petitioners calling upon them to vacate the subject premises. In the earlier round of litigat...

Zitru Lahanuji Lonare Vs. Rajesh Trimbakrao Deshmukh and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR229; 2008(6)MhLj348

Vasanti A. Naik, J.1. Since common questions of law arise for consideration in these two first appeals, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.2. The appeals were admitted on the following substantial question of law.Whether a person appointed under the provisions of Section 41D(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, could challenge his removal from the Body of Fit Persons, by filing an application under Section 41D(5) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, before the 'Court'?3. To answer the aforesaid substantial question of law, it is necessary to note few facts.The Ideal Education Society was registered as a public trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' for the purpose of brevity) in the year 1963. An enquiry under Section 41D of the Act was initiated against the founder recorded trustees in the year 1981. The Joint Charity Commissioner decided the proceedings on 27-11-1989 and while removing...

Shri Nandlal M. Gandhi Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. Since there was a difference of opinion between the Ld. Members constituting "E" Bench of I.T.A.T., Mumbai in respect of the aforesaid appeal, I was nominated as Third Member by the Hon'ble President, I.T.A.T. Under Section 255(4) of I.T. Act, 1961. The question referred to me reads as under: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order Under Section 158BC made by the assessing officer is time barred within the meaning of Section 158BE of the Act? 2. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the block assessment order dated 30.9.1999 passed Under Section 158BC was barred by limitation in terms of Section 158BE of the Act. The admitted facts of the .case are that a search & seizure operation under warrant of authorization issued Under Section 132 was carried out at the residential premises of the assessee at 7.30 p.m. on 28.7.1997 and continued till 2.30 a.m. on 29.7.1997. During the said search, certain incriminating materials which, inter alia, included ...

Prabhudas Devji Ghutla Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2433

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The order of detention dated 1/12/2007 passed under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the Act), by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority, is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said order was served on the detenue - Harnish Prabhudas Ghutla @ Kanha (the petitioner's son) on 5/1/2008 at Veraval, Taluka Junagadh in the State of Gujarat along with the statement of reasons and other connected documents and was detained in the Mumbai Central Jail, Arthur Road on 6/1/2008 and continues to be in detention as of now. The period of detention is one year from the date of detention i.e. from 5/1/2008.2. Though a number of grounds have been raised against the impugned order of detention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has confined her arguments only to the following...

Tata Power Company Limited Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR143]; (2008)IIILLJ992Bom; 2008(6)MhLj258

S.A. Bobde, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner company has questioned the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in an enquiry under Section 7A of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the Act' for short) confirmed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi.2. The only question is whether the Food Allowance agreed to be paid by the petitioner to its employees under a settlement is 'cash value of any food concession' allowed to the employee and therefore liable to be included for the purpose of calculating the employers contribution to the provident fund.3. In the course of a settlement, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 Union agreed to as follows:Food Allowance:It is agreed between the parties that with effect from 1st June, 1995 the food allowance will be as under :A) In divisions where canteen exists, employees would be paid a food allowance of Rs.900/- per month (throug...

Chetan S/O. Chandrashekhar Swami Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj762

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner had applied for verification of his caste claim as belonging to Mala Jangam Scheduled Caste. A caste certificate had been issued in favour of the petitioner by the Tahsildar and Taluka Executive Magistrate, Dharur, District Beed on 19th July, 1994. According to the petitioner his caste claim was forwarded in October, 2000 by the Principal of Dayanand College, Latur for verification. As the constituted Committee did not take up the matter for scrutiny the petitioner had to apply for admission to Engineering Course from open category. The Committee by order dated 20th June, 2005 refused to verify the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he had not sought admission from reserved category. That order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 6345 of 2005. This Court by order dated 13th June, 2006 directed the Committee to scrutinise and verify the caste claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. This Co...