Mumbai Court December 2009 Judgments

Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani, Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through ...

Court: Mumbai

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Preamble of our Constitution guarantees to a citizen justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. All these are possible only when there is rule of law. The rule of law could discernibly be dissected into two well accepted concepts : (i) governance and (ii) administration of justice. They are not only the pillars of the Constitutional mandate, but are linchpin to the growth, development and independence of any nation or society. Governance obviously means good governance and it refers to the task of running the Government in an effective manner. Right to a legitimate and accountable government under which fundamental rights and human rights are respected and the Government controlled by the rule of law are the basic elements of good governance. Rule of law indicates good governance which requires fair legal framework that enforce law impartially. Impartial enforcement of laws requires an independent judiciary and an impartial and incorruptible police force.2. Edwa...

Girish Mulchand Mehta and Durga Jaishankar Mehta Vs. Mahesh S. Mehta a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR31

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This appeal takes exception to the Judgment dated 3rd July, 2009 in Arbitration Petition (L) No. 493/2009. The said petition was filed by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The relief's claimed in the said Petition read thus:a) That during pendency of arbitral proceeding between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1, before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator Shri L.H. Patil, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint Court Receiver High Court Bombay or any fit and proper person as Receiver of the said property i.e. plot of land bearing city survey No. 5728 final plot No. 257 of Ghatkopar T.P.S. III, R.N. Narkar Marg, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai-400 077 and the building known as 'Harini' standing thereon with all powers under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure including power to take physical possession by physically removing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and their family ...

Shyamabai Wd/O Surajkaran Joshi and ors. Vs. Madan Mohan Mandir Sansth ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR294

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Gilda, learned Counsel for the appellants, and Shri Mohta, learned Counsel for the respondent in Second Appeal No. 116/1998, as well as Shri Gordey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chopde, learned Counsel for the respondents in Writ Petition No. 3749/2008.2. Justice A.B. Chaudhari in view of conflicting decisions of the learned Single Judges of this Court in the writ petitions thought it appropriate to refer the controversy in issue to the larger Bench and, therefore, vide order dated 6.8.2009 passed in Second Appeal No. 116/1998 referred the following questions for determination to the Full Bench:(i) Whether Sections 47 and 48 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 are applicable to a Public Trust and consequently, whether all the Trustees of such Public Trust are required to be joined as party to the suit for eviction of a tenant ?(ii) Whether in the absence of registration of a public trust, in addition, under the Societies Registration Act, the provi...

Vashulal Madhavdas Talreja and Another Vs. Shyam Niketan Co-op. Hsg. S ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order Per Justice Shri S.B. Mhase Honble President: The Complainant and his Advocate and Respondent and his Advocate are present. We heard both the parties at length. (1) This complaint is filed for directing the Opposite Party Society to pay damages of Rs.61,80,000/- towards the Flat No.20 on the 4th Floor of the Opposite Party Society from 18.07.1983 to 17.09.2009 @ Rs.20,000/- per month (i.e. 25 years and 9 months) for the amounts of licence compensation. It has been further prayed that the Opposite Party Society to be directed to pay the amount of Rs.30,90,000/- towards damages caused to Flat No.21 on 4th Floor of the Opposite Party Society from 18.07.1983 to 17.09.2009 @ Rs.10,000/- per month (i.e. for 25 years and 9 months) for a loss of license compensation and also actual cost of the complaint including expenses incurred in the correspondence etc. Any other reliefs which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (2) The factual matrix which are no...

Shri Pandurang D. Rane and ors. Vs. Mrs. Vijabai V. Rane Sardessai and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR58

R.M. Savant, J.1. The above two Petitions involve a common question and are therefore heard together and disposed of.2. The issue in the Petition that arises is whether a party who was not before the Collector in the Land Acquisition Proceedings can be allowed to intervene in the reference proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the said Act').3. The Petitioners in both the above Petitions have challenged the Order dated 30.03.2002, by which Order the learned Addl. District Judge, Panaji, has rejected the applications of the Petitioners for being allowed to intervene in the reference proceedings being Land Acquisition Case Nos. 81/1999 and 82/1999. Since the Petition involves identical facts, the facts in Writ Petition No. 302/2003 would be referred to for convenience sake, The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 302/2003 claim to be co-owners of the property 'Ambotanem' and the acquired land from Survey No. 752 and 756 (subject matter of Land Acquisiti...

Bhiwapur Taluka Shetki Sahakri Kharedi Vikri Samit Limited Through Its ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR111

Vasanti A. Naik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Umred on 17.3.2001 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent No. 1 in service.2. The petitioner is a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The respondent No. 1 was working as a Manager with the said society. After holding a departmental enquiry against the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 was dismissed form service w.e.f. 11.1.2001. The respondent No. 1 challenged the order of dismissal in a departmental appeal before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Umred. After hearing the parties, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Umred allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent No. 1 in service.3. Shri V.D. Raut, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that ...

Dashrath S/O Chindhuji Dhurve Vs. Pandurang S/O Rajaram Gedam

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR50

A.P. Bhangale, J.1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 19th August, 2006 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Wardha in Regular Civil Appeal No. 135 of 1994 whereby the appeal challenging dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 25 of 1992 by the IV Joint Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Wardha was dismissed.2. The facts which gave rise to the Second Appeal, in nutshell, are as under:The plaintiff (respondent) instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 25/1992 for declaration and permanent injunction against appellant (original defendant). The plaintiff claimed possession of suit Plot No. 55/A admeasuring 50 'x 20' in the field 'Maila Bardi' belonging to 'Niyojit Adiwasi Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha, Wardha', a Cooperative society. The plaintiff claimed that he is the owner and in possession of suit plot and was a member of the society and allotted the suit plot for residential purpose by resolution dated 20.5.1983 passed in general meeting of the society. The plot was transfe...

Tukaram S/O Tulshiram Nakhate Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR67

Vasanti A. Naik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur (Chandrapur) on 11.4.2001 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools [Conditions of Service] Regulation Act 1977.2. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur claiming that he was appointed by the respondent/ management as a Clerk w.e.f. 3.9.1991. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was again appointed as a Clerk by the appointment order dated 15.7.1993. It was pleaded by the petitioner in the appeal memo that the President of the Society called the petitioner to his residence on 6.12.1996 and obtained a letter of resignation which was backdated. It is stated in the appeal memo that the date was wrongly shown on the resignation letter as 5.11.1996. It was pleaded that the resignation letter was obtained under ...

Shri Ganpat R. Palni and Dnyneshwar Mandrekar Vs. State of Goa, Throug ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR45

N.A. Britto, J.1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 1.4.2002 issued by the Secretary of the Goa Legislative Secretariat.2. The petitioners joined as L.D.Cs in the then Goa Legislative Department on 23.12.1987 and 2.9.1982 respectively, and, thereafter they were promoted twice. Both became U.D.Cs on 3.5.1993 and 1.6.1989 respectively. By order dated 8.3.1995 their posts were re-designated. Thus U.D.Cs became Assistants. Later, both of them became Senior Assistants on 28.8.2000 and 3.5.1993 respectively and were possibly looking forward to become Section Officers (Superintendents) when the impugned order came to be issued on 1.4.2002 by which two posts of Section Officers, one post of Reporter and two posts of Senior Assistants were surrendered and in their place six posts of Assistants were created. The order impugned in this petition clearly mentions that the creation of six posts of Assistants in the pay scale shown therein would be met from the savings resulted ou...

Krushna Wasudeorao Ambekar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR110

Pangarkar C.L., J.1. This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in an appeal filed by the non-tribal, challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar to restore the land to the tribal.2. The facts are as followsThe petitioners are non-tribals while respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are said to be tribals and it is alleged that they belong to Halbi tribe.3. One Smt. Bayabai w/o Ramchandra Ambekar - the mother of the petitioner - had purchased the lands in question from one Doma Shrawan Pradhan and two others in the year 1962. Suo moto proceedings were started by the Tahsildarfor restoration of the lands to the Tribals. The Tahsildar, however, had dropped those proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent had filed appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and by order dated 5/5/1988, M.R.T. allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry. Accordingly, the Tahsildar made...