Mumbai Court December 2011 Judgments
Vinayak Bhiva Bhilare Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. In both these petitions, the petitioners have challenged Act No. XXVI of 2011 by which interalia, the provisions of section 5 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act,1949 and section 10 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 have been amended. The amending sections read as follows: " In section 5 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, in sub-section (3), for the words "elect only one Councillor" the words "elect as far as possible two Councillors but not less than two and not more than three Councillors, and each voter shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, be entitled to cast the same number of votes, as the number of Councillors to be elected in his ward" shall be substituted. In section 10 of the MaharashtraMunicipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and In...
Tag this Judgment!Pandharinath Bhikaji Telge Vs. the Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
1. The challenge in the above petitions, is to two orders - both dated 23rd October, 2009, passed by the Appropriate Authority, Mumbai, under section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act' for the sake of brevity). By the said orders, it was held that the difference between the fair market value and apparent consideration in respect of the subject property is more than 15%, and therefore, it was a fit case of pre-emptive purchase by the Central Government under section 269 UD (1) of the IT Act. 2. Pandharinath, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2134 of 2010 and Dattatram, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2135 of 2010, are brothers and the owners (hereinafter collectively referred to as owners) of one half undivided share each of Plot No. 565 of Suburban Scheme III of Chembur, CTS No. 1554-A, Vithal Niwas, Ghatla Village, Ghatla Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400 0071 totally admeasuring about 890.80 sq. metres of land, with structure thereon (hereinafter referred to as 'the said pr...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh S/O Rangnathrao Sonawane Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Junior Manager (Personnel) with the Respondents. On 2.2.2010, an offence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, came to be registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was suspended by Respondents vide order dated 15.2.2010 with effect from 2.2.2010. On or about 26.3.2010, the charge-sheet in Departmental inquiry was served on the petitioner. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2809/2010, challenging the said charge-sheet. The said Writ Petition was filed 3 W.P.No.6513/11 on the ground that as Criminal case is pending, the Departmental Inquiry be stayed. The said Writ Petition was pending. In the Departmental proceedings the petitioner sought extension of time. On 24.6.2010, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling explanation from the petitioner as to why penalty of...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanan Babar and ors Vs the State of Maharashtra Andors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
S.A. BOBDE And SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners in these petitions are the residents of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Pune Municipal Corporation respectively. They have challenged the final notification issued under Section 5(3) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "BPMC Act, 1949") by which the city of Pimpri Chinchwad and Pune have been divided into various wards for the purpose of forthcoming elections to the Municipal Corporation. 3. The main contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the State Election Commission has committed serious error of law in taking the population figure of 2011 for determining number of councilors who should be elected but has taken into account the population figure of the year 2001 for determining number of reserved category seats even though such seats are bound to have a certain proportion to the genera...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Drugs Manufacturers Association and ors. Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
1 Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The above Petition arises out of the Application for impleadment being Chamber Summons No.769 of 2011 filed by Respondent No.2 herein being allowed by the impugned order dated 10/10/2011 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay. 3 Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be stated thus : The suit in question i.e. Short Cause Suit No.1444 of 2011 has been filed by the Petitioner herein taking exception to the threatened action of demolition of structure being Room No.31, 3rd Floor, 123, Masjid Street, Mumbai-400003 pursuant to the notice bearing No. C/BF/SEBII/351/3642/2011 dated 30/05/2011 issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (for brevity's sake "The said Act") by the Assistant Commissioner of the Corporation. In the said suit the Plaintiff had applied for ad-interim relief which was refused by the City Civil Court resulting in filing of Appeal from Order...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Greater Vs. Falaknoor Wife of Arif Lakdawala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
1 Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The above Petition arises out of the Application for impleadment being Chamber Summons No.769 of 2011 filed by Respondent No.2 herein being allowed by the impugned order dated 10/10/2011 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay. 3 Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be stated thus : The suit in question i.e. Short Cause Suit No.1444 of 2011 has been filed by the Petitioner herein taking exception to the threatened action of demolition of structure being Room No.31, 3rd Floor, 123, Masjid Street, Mumbai-400003 pursuant to the notice bearing No. C/BF/SEBII/351/3642/2011 dated 30/05/2011 issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (for brevity's sake "The said Act") by the Assistant Commissioner of the Corporation. In the said suit the Plaintiff had applied for ad-interim relief which was refused by the City Civil Court resulting in filing of Appeal from Order...
Tag this Judgment!Ambarish Rangshahi Patnigere and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
1 A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 8 April, 2011 ordered that this petition shall be placed before a Larger Bench.2 The order dated 8 April, 2011 passed by the Division Bench reads thus: "Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for Municipal Corporation, we are of the view that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sudhir R. Bhatankar v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1999 (Supp.) Bom. C.R. 910 : 2000(1) Mh.L.J. 519. in so far it holds that the provisions of section 56(1)(b) of the B.P.M.C. Act will not apply where suspension is for holding an enquiry in the charges levelled against an officer requires reconsideration. The matter shall accordingly, be placed before the Larger Bench." By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners who are the officers of the Municipal Corporation of the city of Navi Mumbai (for short "the said Corporation") have challenged...
Tag this Judgment!Society for Promotion of Equality Vs. the National Sports Club of Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
1. In this petition purporting to be Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner NGO has prayed for direction to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'Municipal Corporation') and respondent no.8-Shashi Prabhu & Associates, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Contractor') to demolish Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Stadium ('SVP Stadium' for short) situate at Lala Lajpatrai Marg, Worli, Mumbai and to restore the stadium to the public as it originally existed. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (respondent no.9) to investigate the matter regarding sanctions/approvals granted by the Municipal Corporation (respondent no.2) for reconstruction of the SVP Stadium and to register a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the officers of respondent no.1-The National Sports Club of India, officers of respondent no.2 and respondent no.8. 2. SVP Stadium as it existed on city survey No.4147 (plot no.11) sin...
Tag this Judgment!Chhalasingh Son of Kishansing Chavan. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2011
1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant (original accused no.1), by way of judgment and order dated 29th June 2011, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar, in Sessions Trial No. 10/2011, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 3. The factual conspectus and shorn of details of the prosecution case are as follows : (a) On 2nd August 2010, at about 10 p.m., the complainant PW 9 Sk. Gausoddin Sk. Bahib was standing in front of Basmath Police Station along with PW 1 Police Head Constable Sk. Raheem, and PW 2 Police Head Constable Prakash Neval after the roll call. At this juncture, they saw two persons of Shikalkari community pr...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Praful Satra And Ors. Vs. Gulmohar Area Society'S Welfar Group And ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2011
1 The above petitions were heard finally by consent at the admission stage since common point is involved in these petitions, with the consent of the Advocates, the petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. Formal order of rule is passed and the service is waived by the respective Advocates. 2 In so far as Writ Petition No.1884 of 2011 is concerned, the same is filed by the Developer namely Shravan Developers, by which the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner dated 30-07-2011. By the impugned order, the Municipal Commissioner gave directions regarding demolishing certain constructions carried out by the developers i.e. Lily ponds and adjacent deck areas, while giving an option that in lieu of demolition, it will be open to the developers to have equal floors of upper floors be demolished, if Lily ponds and Deck areas are to be retained by the owner by working out the revised FSI computation accordingly. The owner is directe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »