Mumbai Court December 2010 Judgments
Shri. Ramchandra B. Relwani Vs. Shri. Raees Ahmed Faruque
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2010
1 Writ petitioner is the applicant in an application made under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") before the Competent Authority. The Respondent to this writ petition is the respondent in the said application. 2 According to the case of the Petitioner, he is the owner of flat No.1 more particularly described in paragraph No.1 of the petition. The said flat is hereinafter referred to as "the suit flat". According to the case of the Petitioner, in October, 2001 he granted leave and license to the Respondent to use and occupy the suit flat for a period of 11 months. The case of the Petitioner is that after expiry of the period of 11 months, the period of license was extended by a further period of 33 months. 3 As the Respondent did not vacate the suit flat, the aforesaid application under Section 24 of the said Act was filed by the Petitioner before the Competent Authority.4 An application was made by the Respondent in the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Khairipura Binaki Mangalwari Premnagar Niwasi Action Committee and ors ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-23-2010
J U D G M E N T : Rule.Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for rival parties.2. The present writ petition is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation and was heard from time to time and various orders were also passed. It is seen that respondent no.7 Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation has constructed a Fly Over for catering the needs of the commuters of Itwari, Gandhibagh and Kamptee area on Mumbai Calcutta railway track at Nagpur. There is a railway crossing passing below the Fly Over, which is being used for commuting on both the sides of the said Fly Over. The said Railway crossing is manually operated by four persons in shifts engaged by the Railways. After construction of the said Fly Over, the Railways took a stand that the said Railway crossing manually operated is no more needed and therefore they decided to close the same for ever. It is in this background, the present writ petition appears to have been filed.3. During the co...
Tag this Judgment!The Akola Janata Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Raju Natthuji Ba ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-23-2010
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel for the parties.2) This letters patent appeal is filed against the judgment dated 22.3.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant had challenged the order dated 21/7/2009 in Special Darkhast No.36/2010 by which the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola recalled the warrant issued under Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure in execution proceedings filed by the appellant Bank.3) A dispute in relation to recovery of loan from the respondents herein was referred to an Arbitrator under Section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The Arbitrator passed an Award in favour of the appellant Bank. The appellant Bank then levied execution in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola. The respondents filed an application praying for dismissal of the execution on the ground of jurisdiction. The executing Court upheld the objec...
Tag this Judgment!Pepsico India Holdings Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2010
What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 17 April 2010 of the Food (Health) Officer & Commissioner, Food & Drug Administration (Maharashtra State), Mumbai, dismissing Appeal No.14/2009 and confirming the order dated 11 June 2009 of the Licensing Officer & Officer (Food) Food & Drug Administration, Pune, suspending the license of the petitioner-factory for a period of two days. The license was issued under Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1962. During pendency of this writ petition, the said orders of the authorities were stayed.2. By consent of the parties, petition was taken up for final disposal.3. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are as under:One complaint was received by the office of Food Inspector, Pune on 7 October 2008 regarding infection of larves in "oats Break Fast special" manufactured by the petitioner. The Food Inspector, Pune inspected the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Sau. Vidya Wife of Vishnu Vanare and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-23-2010
1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. In the present petition, the petitioner is seeking implementation of Government Resolution dated 12.3.2008 in her case to be made by the Zilla Parishad, Buldhana i.e. by appointing her to the post of Anganwadi Sevika.3. It has been observed by this Court that Anganwadi helpers and Anganwadi Sevikas who hardly get honorarium @ Rs.1,000/- to 1200/- per month and who work in rural areas straightway rush to this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters pertaining to their employment i.e. termination, regularization etc.. In the instant case, we find that the petitioner claims that she has been working as Anganwadi helper since 1.11.2001 by an order of appointment made by the Zilla Parishad, Buldhana. According to her, in the year 2007 Anganwadi Sevika working at Mouza Dhanora (Bk) Tq. Nandura District Buldhana resigned and...
Tag this Judgment!Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Maharashtra Po ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2010
1. Heard.2. Rule.3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 waive service. Respondent No.3 is a formal party. Respondent No.1 has filed affidavit-in-reply as well as sur-rejoinder affidavit and, therefore, the petition has been heard finally with the consent of the parties.4. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the decision of the respondent No.1 and as communicated to the petitioner through the letter dated 27th October, 2010, forfeiting five bank guarantees submitted as earnest money deposit on the ground that the bid submitted by the petitioners had rendered invalid in terms of the tender, is under challenge and the earnest money deposit is to the extent of Rs.16,75,00,000/- crore. 5. The petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with petitioner No.2 as its shareholder, is engaged in trading of coal amongst other activities. Respondent No.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is in the business of generation of electricit...
Tag this Judgment!Unknown Vs. the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-23-2010
1. RULE. Made returnable forthwith.2. Heard finally by consent of the parties. HE FACTST :3. This public interest litigation is initiated in exercise of suo motu powers of this Court based on the news item published in local daily "Navbharat" dated 11th and 12th November, 2010 exposing pathetic road conditions, rampant encroachment on the footpaths and chaotic conditions due to traffic congestion, water logging at various places in rainy season for want of proper drainage, unauthorized hotels and shop owners throwing garbage and dirty water on the road, coupled with unauthorized taxis and two wheelers parking on the footpaths in the surroundings of the Nagpur Railway Station. This Court was issued notices to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur Improvement Trust, Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, Collector, Nagpur, Road Transport Officer, Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Nagpur.4. In reply to the notices, the noticees appeared before this Court and filed their replyaffida...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sampatti M. Doiphode Vs. the Incharge, Vishrambhaug Police Statio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2010
1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned APP for State.2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, exception is taken to the order passed by the District Magistrate, Sangli dated 14th June, 2010 in exercise of powers under section 18 of the Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act, 1956. The only contention that has to be addressed in this Petition as canvassed before us is that section 18 of the Act could not have been invoked by the competent authority in the fact situation of the present case, in as much as the FIR registered against the Petitioner is only in respect of offence under section 3,4, 5 and 6 of the Act of 1956 and section 292 read with 34 of I.P.C. This argument is pressed on the basis of the reference made to section 7 of the Act in section 18 thereof. The argument though attractive deserves to be stated to be rejected. It clearly overlooks the assertion made by the Respondents in paragraph-5 of the reply affidavit, which reads thus: "5. I say...
Tag this Judgment!Waman S/O Limbaji Kute and ors. Vs. the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal a ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2010
1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2 This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector, L.Rs. Parbhani dated 24.11.1987 in case No. 87/TNC/A/98-C/49 and the judgment and order dated 6.4.1990 passed by learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Aurangabad in Case No. 89/B/89-P.3 The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ petition, are as under;- The respondent herein who claims to be the tenant of the suit land, filed an application before the Additonal Tahsildar, Parbhani on 16.7.1985 stating therein that the petitioner No.1 is land owner, who gave land in dispute to the respondent Sakharam and his elder brother Tukaram for cultivation on Munafa basis, in the year 1954. It is further stated that Tukaram being elder brother and Karta of the family, his name is entered into cultivation column. It was further claimed that there was joint family and they were cultivating the suit land at the time of enforcement of H...
Tag this Judgment!Bahujan Vikas Mandal, Akola Vs. Ku. Manda Vithalrao Parsutkar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-22-2010
1] This writ petition challenges the judgment and order dated 20.11.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati, allowing Appeal No. 63/2002, filed by Respondent No.1 and setting aside resolution passed by the petitioners on 29.10.2002, accepting the resignation alleged to have tendered by the Respondent No.1, on 30.7.2002, which is considered to be the otherwise termination of the service. The order of reinstatement and backwages has also been passed and this is the subject matter of challenge in this petition preferred by the Management. 2] The facts leading to the case are as under The respondent no.1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 3.7.1995. She was appointed as incharge headmistress from 1.7.1996 to 31.7.2002. The case of the Management was that the respondent no.1 had tendered her resignation on 30.7.2002, which was received by the Management on 1.8.2002. The Management by its resolution dated 29.10.2002, accepted the said resignation and it w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »