Court : Mumbai
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!Court : Mumbai
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!Court : Mumbai
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!Court : Mumbai
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!Court : Mumbai
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!Court : Mumbai
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!Court : Mumbai
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!Court : Mumbai
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!Court : Mumbai
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!Court : Mumbai
1 Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The above Petition takes exception to the Order dated 24-6-2011 passed by the Learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Kolhapur, by which Order, the Misc Application No.1351 of 1980 came to be disposed of by observing that since the objector is dead, the objections are "filed" for want of the objector. 3 It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary facts. However, suffice it to say, that there is a money decree passed in favour of the Bank which is dated 25-6-1974. The execution proceedings for executing the said decree were set in motion and the property in question which was mortgaged was permitted to be auctioned. Pursuant to the said auction, the Respondent Bank itself purchased the said property as there was no other buyer. On 3-5-1980 the Respondent Bank filed Misc Application No.1351 of 1980 before the executing Court under Order 21 Rule 95 of the Civil Procedure Code for possession of the pr...
Tag this Judgment!