Mumbai Court March 2009 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.
Chaudhary Construction Co. a Partnership Firm Duly Registered Under th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR344; 2009(111)BomLR1665
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a direction or order directing the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the `Corporation') to open the Petitioner's bid containing Packet `C' and consider its bid for awarding contract work at serial Nos. 39, 41 and 48 pursuant to the Tender Notice dated 15.11.2008. This prayer is made on the factual matrix that the Petitioner claims to be a registered contractor for civil work with the Corporation and had been successful bidder in various tenders and has performed various civil works awarded to it by the Corporation satisfactorily, including storm water drain work, for which the Corporation had issued Performance Certificate. In November, 2008, the Corporation invited tenders on percentage basis for Storm Water Drain Works from its registered contractors for a total of 49 works. The successful tenderer was to be awarded maximum three w...
Prayagbai W/O Annasaheb Kadam, Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through It ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR408; 2009(111)BomLR1612; 2009(4)MhLj779
Naresh H. Patil, J.1. The appellants filed return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961, as amended upto 1975, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act'). According to the appellants, they possess six agricultural lands i.e. Survey Nos. 163,149,147,17,5 and 164 at village Mangrool, Taluka Pathri, District Parbhani comprising of 161 acres 6 Gunthas. During enquiry conducted by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (for short, 'SLDT'), under the old Ceiling Act, out of total area of 65 acres 9 gunthas from Survey Nos. 5,164 and 163 was already declared as surplus. After deduction of 65 acres and 9 gunthas, the holding of the appellants was of 95 acres 37 gunthas. Out of the said lands an area of 9 acres 39 gunthas was acquired for Jayakwadi project. 2 acres of land from land Survey No. 5 was acquired for Road and an area of 17 gunthas was Pot-Kharaba. Four acres of land vested in Nala. The appellants, therefore, submit that...
Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa a Statutory Authority Under Advocat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR387; 2009(111)BomLR1143; 2009(4)MhLj112
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the eligibility criteria stated in the advertisement issued by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') inviting application for preliminary examination to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class). A copy of this advertisement issued on 17th December 2008 is annexed as Exhibit 'A' to the Petition. Clause 4 of the advertisement relates to conditions of eligibility. It reads as under :4) Conditions of Eligibility -(i) Age and Qualification - (Any one of the following A, B, C, D, E or F)A) For Advocate, Attorney or Pleader :- Age Limit - As on 1st April, 2009 - not less than 21 and not more than 35 years.Qualification - Candidate must hold a degree in law and must have practiced as an Advocate, Attorney or Pleader in the High Court or Courts Subordinate thereto, for not less than 3 years on 17t...
Vasant Permanand Muley, Advocate Vs. Aurangabad Municipal Council, Thr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR337; 2009(111)BomLR1204; 2009(4)MhLj771
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, in Regular Civil Suit No. 184 of 1977, decided on 29th September, 1983, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with compensatory costs of Rs. 100/- to each of defendant Nos. 1,3,6 to 8; which judgment and decree is further confirmed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Aurangabad, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1984 decided on 29th September, 1986.2. Brief facts relevant for decision of this appeal may be stated as below:The plaintiff/appellant filed the suit against Municipal Council, Aurangabad (as it was then) and its office bearers in official capacity as well as in the individual capacity claiming damages of Rs. 8240/- prior to the suit and at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day till demolition of illegal construction made by one Govindrao Padalkar on plot No. 81 in Bhagya Nagar colony at Aurangabad and for issuing mandat...
Government of Goa, Represented by the Director of Tourism and the Comp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR762
P. B. Majmudar, J.1. Government of Goa has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order passed by Principal District Judge, Panaji, dated 26.08.2008. By the impugned Order, the Principal District Judge, Panaji, partly allowed the applications submitted by the respondent herein.2. The respondent preferred an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the purpose of interim measure. The dispute is in connection with removal of the vessel namely M.V. River Princess, grounded off at Sinquerim Beach, Candolim. So far as the ship is concerned, it is grounded on the said beach since 06.06.2000, i.e. more than eight years and in order to prevent environmental hazard, it was felt necessary on the part of State of Goa to see that the said ship is removed and taken out for the purpose of refloating and towing it away wholly to the ship breaking yard. For the aforesaid purpose, an agreement was entered into between the present appellant and respondent da...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Divisional Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR387
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Complainant, who is respondent No. 1 in this petition, was first appointed as Clerk in Time Scale on 01.03.1973. On 02.07.1993, he was promoted on temporary basis as officiating Junior Assistant. On 19.03.1978, he appeared for departmental examination for the promotion to the post of Jr. Assistant. On 17.04.1978 he passed that examination and became qualified for the post of Junior Assistant on regular basis. After that on 19.04.1978, he was appointed as Junior Assistant on probation for a period of one year. On satisfactory completion of the probation, he was confirmed as Junior Assistant on 19.04.1979. As per the 1981 Settlement, between the petitioner-MSRTC and its employees' Union, the complainant, on completion of 12 years continuous service as Junior Assistant, was given higher grade with effect from 19.04.1990. According to the complainant, he was entitled to higher grade with effect from 02.07.1985 when he had completed 12 years continuous service on the post ...
Shri Chetan Vitthal Tupe Vs. Shri Shailesh Narayan Shinde and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR481; 2009(4)MhLj73
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard finally, by consent in view of urgency shown and as both the matters revolved around the common Judgment and Order dated 19/01/2007, passed in Election Petition No. 1 of 2007, passed by the learned 7th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, and as the basic parties are common, therefore, this common judgment.2. In Writ Petition No. 2362 of 2009, the Petitioner is Original Respondent No. 3 in Election Petition (for short, E.P.) No. 1 of 2007. Respondent No. 1 is Original Election Petitioner in E.P.. Respondent No. 2 is a Pune Municipal Corporation (for short 'PMC') established under the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. (for short 'BPMC Act'). The Election of Ward No. 42 of Respondent No. 2 was called in question. Respondent No. 3 is the Election Returning Officer (for short 'E.R.O.') appointed by the State Election Commission to conduct the elections. Respondent Nos. 4 to 10 are the candidates who contested the election fro...
Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1653; 2009BusLR461(Bom); [2009]314ITR256(Bom); 2009(4)MhLj598; [2009]182TAXMAN176(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. by consent of parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). By the said notice dated 27-3-2008, the assessment for assessment year 2001-02 is sought to be reopened.3. The petitioner is carrying on business of purchase / sale of shares on behalf of its customers as a sub-broker.4. In the assessment year 2001-02, the petitioner had inter alia entered into two transactions for purchase and sale of shares of Zee Telefilms for and on behalf of its customers viz. Camelot Enterprises Private Limited ('Camelot' for short) and earned speculation profit of Rs. 1,32,96,106/-. Admittedly, the said speculation profit has been paid by the petitioner to Camelot and the same has been assessed to tax in the hands of Camelot.5. On 18-12-2003, assessment for AY 2001-02 under Section 143(3) of the Act wa...
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Vs. Dsl Enterprises Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR843; 2009(111)BomLR1246; 2009BusLR326(Bom)
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. This Petition has been filed initially by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) (Petitioner No. 1) and in which later Maharashtra State Distribution Company Limited (MSDC) (Petitioner No. 2) came to be added pursuant to a transfer scheme under which the rights, liabilities, properties and interests of the former stood vested in the latter.2. The Petition is filed essentially against Respondent No. 1 Company, which has entered into a Work Contract with the Petitioner No. 1, the rights and liabilities under which stood transferred to Petitioner No. 2. The Petitioners shall be referred to as 'the Petitioner' . Respondent No. 1 Company shall be referred to as 'the Respondent'.3. The Respondent as the Lessee of the Petitioner, under the Work Order executed between these parties on 27th March 1997, had to install what is called a Low Tension Load Management System (LTLMS) for improving the rural distribution of electricity network of the State Electricity Boards i...
Shri Armando Pereira S/o. Santano Pereira and Smt. Sharayu Pereira W/o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR147
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. These two writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment since the parties to both the petitions, are common. The petitioners are the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 while the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the original plaintiffs and the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 are the original defendants. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants.2. The facts giving rise to these petitions, are as follows:The plaintiffs contend that they are the sons of late Paulina D'Souza, who died on 18.11.1972. By virtue of a deed of succession dated 07.03.1990, the plaintiffs have been declared as successor of late Paulina D'Souza. She was also known as Dorathina. The defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are the real brothers while the defendant Nos. 2 and 4 are their wives. The defendant Nos. 5 to 10 are the tenants in the suit property. By virtue of sale deed dated 28.10.1967, the defendant No. 3 Jose and Paulina D'Souza became the owner of the plot No. 12 hav...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »