Mumbai Court October 2011 Judgments
Ganpati Dadu Mali Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
1. The petitioners by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the orders contained in Letter dated 2nd February, 1990 as well as Notice dated 3rd March, 1990 issued by respondent no.3 and respondent no.2 respectively under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the Act"). 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:- The dispute is about the land, Survey No.349, Hissa No.7 admeasuring 18 gunthas of Village - Lengare, Taluka Khanapur, District : Sangli, now forms part of Gat No.1316 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the suit land"). In the Village Lengare, the Consolidation Scheme under the Act was made SSK/ 3 WP/1783.90 applicable in the year 1970. Notices to the parties under Section 15A of the Act were issued on 8th June, 1970. The Consolidation Officer recorded statements as agreed by concerned Kha...
Tag this Judgment!The Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Central Zoo Authority and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
1] Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent. 2] P.I.L. No. 34/10 initiated by the Court on its own motion and Writ Petition No. 125/11 filed by Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth relate to the same construction on land bearing Khasra No. 83/4 of Mouza Lendra in the city of Nagpur and have been taken up together by the consent of parties for final disposal. 3] The PIL inter alia calls upon Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola (hereinafter referred to as "the Agricultural University") to show-cause why the construction should not be declared illegal and why it should not be demolished. Writ Petition No. 125/11 is preferred by the Agricultural University praying that the orders passed by the Planning Authority rejecting the application made by the Agricultural University for permission to construct and directing the removal of the unauthorized construction and the order of the Government of Maharashtra rejecting the Agricultu...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Mrs. Pratibha Wo Prabhakar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
1. Rule. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the Public Health Department, Government of Maharashtra challenging the decision dated 15/4/2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short "Tribunal") in Transfer Application No.3872/1991 in Writ Petition No.214/1990. 3. The respondent no.1 was appointed as Medical Officer -II in the Health Services of the Government of Maharashtra by order dated 10/4/1968. In the year 1974 the respondent no.1 was promoted and brought in the cadre of Medical Officer, Class-I. The respondent got second promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Health Services w.e.f.18/11/1982. The respondent no.2 is holding similar post and in the seniority list published on 22/6/1989 he was shown next below the respondent no.1 whereas one Dr. V.D. Sontakke is senior to respondent nos.1 and 2. The next promotional post is of Joint Director, Health Services. By order date...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax I Vs. Ms. Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
1. These Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the Department are against same assessee and arise out of common order dated 31.07.2009 delivered by the ITAT, Nagpur. The assessment years involved are 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. Shri Parchure, learned Counsel appearing for the department has pointed out that the question of admissibility of deduction under Section 80 HHC, is involved in all these matters. While additional question of nature of expenditure on repairs of transformers, falls for consideration in Income Tax Appeal No.101/2010, which is for the assessment year 2004-05. 2. In this background we have heard Shri Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri C.J. Thakkar, learned Counsel for respondent in all the appeals finally. 3. Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for department has contended that the transformer was virtually re-built and hence expenses of Rs. 1,80,85,276/- could not have been treated as on current repairs. He has contend...
Tag this Judgment!Office Addresslodha Paradise Vs. Shri Kishan Waman Bhoir and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Admit. With the consent of the parties, Appeal taken up for final disposal. 2. The appellants-original defendants are taking exception to the order passed below exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 186/2011 thereby granting an order of injunction in favour of the respondents-original plaintiffs and against the defendants restraining them from making and/or continuing any construction over the properties of the plaintiff including the suit properties and the lands bearing Hissa Nos. 8 and 3 of Survey Nos. 25 and 26 respectively of village Majiwade, Dist. Thane. The original defendants-appellants herein are also restrained temporarily during the pendency of the suit from creating third party interest in respect of aforesaid properties. The plaintiff instituted a Special Civil Suit No. 186/2011 for the following reliefs:- "a) the suit may be decreed; b) in the Schedule mentioned in Para No.6, since Suit Properties No. 1 to 7 were included in the unregister...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Mrs. Pratibha Wo. Prabhakar Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner seeking relief of declaration that the provisions of Articles 323-A(2)(d) of the Constitution vis--vis provisions of Section 5(2), wp663.94.odt 2 Judgment 5(4)(d), proviso 6(2)(b), (bb), (c), 6(3)(d), 6(3)(A), 17, 28, 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 are ultra-vires the constitution, to quash and set aside judgment dated 19.01.1994 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in O.A. No.977 of 1991 and also to quash the notice dated 25.05.1990 issued by respondent No.1 directing the petitioner's premature retirement under the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and further to reinstate the petitioner as Deputy Director of Health Services and allow her to continue in the said post till she retires on superannuation with all future benefits accruable to her including promotion to the higher post. 2. The petitioner entered into health s...
Tag this Judgment!Depe Global Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mpil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Jagtiani, Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Madan, Sr. Counsel for Respondent. Rule. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. Present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Judgment and Order dated 26/9/2011 passed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai presiding in C.R. No. 19 thereby dismissing the Application Exh. 26 filed by the Plaintiff in TE & R Suit No. 198/211 of 2003. Brief background of the facts leading to this litigation is essential. 3. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner Plaintiff is the landlord and Respondent Defendant is tenant in respect of the suit premises. The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has been brought into force w.e.f. 30/3/2000. Section 3(1)(b) of the said Act provides that provisions of that Act will not apply to a limited company having a paid up share capital of Rs. One Crore or more. In so far as Mumbai is concern...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Maganlal Baijal Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.):- 1. Heard Mr. Dada, the learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Pratik Seksaria for the petitioner and Mr. Dhond, the learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Vagyani for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. Anturkar appears with Mr. Deshmukh for respondent no.3. 2. This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution impugns the order dated 8/9/2011 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal for short) in Original Application No. 556 of 2011 filed by the petitioner. 3. Rule. Respondents waive service. The petition has been heard finally. 4. The petitioner was holding the post of Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Mumbai and on 1/6/2009 he came to be transferred as Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Nashik. The post of Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nashik is for the entire revenue division of Nashik consisting of five districts. The petitioner was served with an order of transfer dated 26/5/2011 as Dy. Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Member, Industrial Court and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
JUDGMENT: 1. This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 27-2-2002 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, in Complaint (ULP) No.51 of 2001, declaring the action of closure of the Regional Accounts Office, Nagpur, and retrenchment of the employees with effect from 5-1-2001, taken by the petitioner-Company to be illegal and amounting to an unfair labour practice covered under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, "the MRTU & PULP Act") and further directing withdrawal of the same and restoring the position prevailing prior to 5-1-2001. 2. The facts leading to this case are as under : Brooke Bond (India) Private Ltd. was a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and it started the business of purchase of tea at the Indian auctions, processing, blending and packing the same in suitable packages in the year 1912. The Head Office of the said Company was at Calcutta and its first factory...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Niranjan S.O. Shripatrao Jadhav Vs. State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 02. Petitioner herein is named as accused No. 1 in Crime No.147/11, dated 4.5.2011 registered with Bidkin Police Station, District Aurangabad. Offences have been registered under Sections 406, 424, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 03. By this petition, the petitioner has moved this court under Articles 226, 227 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 04. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has urged various points in support of his plea which can be summarized as follows:- (i) The property for which FIR is lodged by the complainant for dishonest misappropriation etc., was of absolute and full ownership of the borrower company, namely, M/s J Square Steels Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred for short as "The company"). Said absolute ownership of the 3 criwp-535.11 plant and machinery continued with the company in spite of its hypothecation. (ii) Rights of the Bank whatsoever in the goods, are only by way of security, and r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »