Mumbai Court April 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.
Meenakshi Financial Consultants (P) Ltd. a Private Limited Company, Un ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR666; 2009(111)BomLR2068
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing, considering the nature of controversy, by making Rule returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners have purchased the plot of land admeasuring 7031 sq.mts. as Palcuta Premiera Adicao and Palcuta Secunda Adicao , having survey No. 87/14(part) of revenue Village Orlim, Salcete for the purposes of having a housing Scheme after obtaining necessary clearance from the Revenue Authorities and Town and Country Planning Authorities. On 19.8.08, the petitioners filed an application for issuance of construction licence and the same was issued to them on the payment of necessary fees. Thereafter, the petitioners also obtained No Objection Certificate from Primary Health Centre, Chinchinim, Government of Goa.3. After this, on 25.11.2008, the petitioners received a show cause notice calling upon them to show cause as to why their licence for construction should not be revoked. The petitioners approached ...
Bhakti Vedanta Book Trust a Trust Registered Under the Bombay Public T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR689; 2009(111)BomLR1951; 2009(4)MhLj144
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Rule.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties waives service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.3. By consent, Rule made returnable and taken up for hearing and the writ petition is disposed of forthwith.4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Pleadings are complete.5. The Development Plan came into force from 15th July, 1997. Out of the land of 5300 sq. mtrs. which the petitioner claims to own, 2500 sq. mtrs. from the petitioner's plot was reserved for the purpose of 'Extension of Royal Education Society'. This reservation came into effect on the day the plan came into force i.e. 15th July, 1997 and according to the petitioner this reservation ended on 15th July, 2007. Since the land was not acquired within the period of 10 years and was not utilised by the Royal Education Society, the petitioner gave purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short 'MRTP Act'). This notice wa...
Shri Gorakh Sripati Mahingade and ors. Vs. the District Collector and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MhLj855
R.V. More, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.2. Rule in all the above Civil Revision Applications. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.3. The issue involved in above Civil Revision Applications is one and the same therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. The facts involved in the Civil Revision Application No. 631 of 2008 are being referred for this common order.4. All these Revisions take exception to the order dated 20th October, 2005 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, rejecting the Petitioners' reference filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.5. Brief facts giving rise to the present Revisions are as follows:i. The Petitioners' land is acquired for developing Kurduwadi Bypass Road under the Land Acquisition Act. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 of 1894 (hereafter called 'the said Act') was issued on 6th December, 2001. Thereafter, declaration under Sectio...
Dashrath Bapu Shinde, Vs. the State of Maharashtra at the Instance of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4708
Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. These two writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment because the parties and the facts involved in both the petitions are the same.3. It is necessary to begin with the facts of the case. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16/6/2007, the petitioners committed offences under Sections 395, 397, 342, 452, 457, 506(II), 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') read with Sections 4, 5, 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act within the jurisdiction of Pant Nagar Police Station, Mumbai.4. The case was registered vide C.R. No. 155 of 2007. The investigation of the said CR was transferred to DCB, CID, Mumbai, and the case was numbered as CR No. 39 of 2007. During the course of investigation, the petitioners were arrested. The provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, 'the MCOCA') ca...
Twist SpIn Industries Through Its Power of Attorney Holder Shri Kiran ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR216; 2009(4)MhLj685
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.2. The plaintiff by this writ petition challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Nagpur allowing an amendment application filed by the defendant.3. A few facts may be narrated as follows - The petitioner/plaintiff filed suit a for declaration and injunction. The petitioner sought relief that defendant had no right to carry out the demolition work at the site and it should be permanently restrained from doing so. The plaintiff had filed an application for temporary injunction and that was contested. The written statement was not filed within ninety days by the defendant. The defendant's application to accept the written statement on record after lapse of ninety days was rejected. A writ petition was preferred by the defendant and High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the written statement to be accepted on record. In the meanwhile, the evidence of the plaint...
Hari Bhuraji Mahajan and ors. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Dawknor and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR674; 2009(6)MhLj483
Kingaonkar V.R., J.1. By this petition, petitioners seek to impugn Judgment rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 311/1986) whereby appeal preferred by the respondents came to be allowed and decree for dismissal of their suit for eviction (R.C.S. No. 448/1983) was reversed.2. Indisputably, the petitioners are tenants in respect of a house property bearing City Survey No. 2286, to the extent of one (1) room as described in the claim clause, situated in ward No. 1 at Shrirampur. The respondents are the original plaintiffs and are landlords of the house property. The standard rent is Rs. 30/- p.m. The tenancy month commences from first day of each calender month.3. The respondents filed suit for eviction alleging that the petitioners had committed willful default in payment of the rent. They asserted further that they were in need of the suit premises for bona fide and personal use. They issued quit notice dated 30-8-1983 and called upon the petiti...
Bhaskarrao Shankarrao Kulkarni Vs. State Information Commissioner and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Bom163
ORDERC.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.2. This writ petition Is preferred by the Trust against the order passed by the State Information Commissioner as well as the Information Officer.3. A few facts may be stated as follows-Respondent No. 3 claims to be a disciple of Sadguru Pralhad Maharaj. There is a trust known as Shree Govind Ramnand Samarth Sadguru Pralhad Maharaj (Ramdasi) Sansthan. The petitioner is the Chief Trustee of the said trust. Respondent No. 3 made an application to the said trust to supply certain information to him under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner trustee informed to respondent No. 3 that information being confidential cannot be supplied. Respondent No. 3, therefore, preferred an appeal to the Information Officer i.e. the Charity Commissioner. The Charity Commissioner ordered upon payment of fees for the information to be supplied. The petitioner, therefore, preferred second appea...
The Union of India (Uoi) Through Its Secretary, Ministry of Rural Deve ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ27Bom
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By way of this Petition, the Petitioners Union of India has challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai dated 17th October 2000 by which order the Tribunal allowed the Original Application No. 656 of 1996 preferred by the Respondent herein. By the impugned order the Tribunal directed the Petitioners herein to reinstate the Applicant i.e. the Respondent herein back in service though without back wages.2. The Respondent was appointed as a Driver on a purely temporary basis and accordingly the appointment order was issued to him in that behalf. The appointment order is produced at page 21 in the compilation of the above Petition which is dated 14th March 1989. The appointment order clearly states that the appointment is purely temporary and is liable to be terminated without assigning any reasons on one month's notice. Subsequently by an order dated 3rd September 1993, the services of the Respondent were terminated. Prior to...
Prime Securities Ltd. Vs. Varinder Mehta, Assistant Commissioner of In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Bom)247; [2009]317ITR27(Bom); [2009]182TAXMAN221(Bom)
Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Petitioner had approached this Court to impugn the notice and letter both dated 16-10-1992 and the notice dated 1-1-1993 being Exhibit A to the petition and letter dated 1-1-1993 being Exhibit B. A few facts may now be set out. In November, 1990, petitioner sold shares of Pudumji Pulps & Paper Mills Limited and Noble Soya House Ltd. to Great Eastern Snipping Company Ltd. which company was the petitioner's holding company. On 31-12-1991 petitioner filed return of income for the assessment year 1991-92, in which the capital gains arising on the transfer of shares of Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. were claimed as not chargeable to tax in view of the provisions of Section 47(v) of the Income-tax Act (In short 'the Act'). This return was signed by the company secretary. In March, 1992, the petitioner had issued fresh shares to entities other than its holding company as a result whereof the shareholding of Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. came down from 100 p...
Arvind Ganesh Karnik and ors. Vs. Reserve Bank of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ743Bom
1. Rule, returnable forthwith.2. Heard finally by consent of the parties.3. The petitioners who are ex-employees of the Reserve Bank of India are aggrieved by Circular dated October 10, 2008 by which Reserve Bank of India had withdrawn its earlier circular dated September 1, 2003. By circular dated September 1, 2003, the pension of the1 petitioners was revised and updated from the year 2002. Admittedly, the petitioners and other similarly situated ex-employees of the Reserve Bank of India were also paid according to the updated pension. The case of the petitioners is that the earlier circular dated September 1, 2003 has been withdrawn and another circular dated October 10, 2008 has been issued by the Reserve Bank of India not on its own but only t because of the directions issued by the Govt. of India. According to the petitioners, the Govt. of India has no power to issue such directions to the Reserve Bank of India. According to the learned Counsel for the Reserve Bank of India, t the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »