Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(6)MhLj598
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule. Respondent waives service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.2. By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners pray that this Court should quash and set aside the orders dated 22nd September 2005, 7th April 2008 and 24th September 2008.3. The Petitioner is the Original Respondent in Eviction Application No. 12 of 2004 which was on the file of the Competent Authority, Konkan Division. That Application has been filed by the Respondent seeking eviction of the Petitioner from the premises on the grounds, which are more particularly enumerated in the Application.4. The Respondent filed this Application invoking Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.5. In terms of the relevant statutory provisions, the Petitioner - Respondent applied for necessary leave to defend. The Competent Authority granted leave to defend on 28th July 2004. Thereupon, the written statement was filed after which the proceedings...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1988Bom334; (1987)89BOMLR612
Pendse, J. 1. The respondents are a firm registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act and carry on business of dealing in liquors, wines and spirits. The respondents import Indian made foreign liquor into Greater Bombay and most of the imports are made from the State of Punjab. The respondents import diverse quantities of cases of Indian made foreign liquor from the manufacturers from time to lime under the import passes issued under Maharashtra Import and Export of Liquor Rules, 1963. The respondents have secured licence to import the liquor and store the same in their bonded warehouse situate at Tejoriwalla Building, Corner of Grant Road, Bombay, in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra Foreign Liquor (Storage in Bond) Rules, 1964. The Government of Bombay enacted the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 for the purpose of amending and consolidating the law relating to the promotion and enforcement of and carrying into effect the policy of prohibition and also the Abkari la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1970)72BOMLR154; 1970MhLJ283
Wagle, J.1. Since these two revision applications raise an exactly similar point, these two applications are being disposed of by one judgment although the incidents are different and the accused are also different.Criminal R.A. No. 249 of 1969.The prosecution case was that upon information received by P. 8. I. Dixit of Savantwadi that rice was being transported from Kolhapur District to Savant-wadi, a truck MYD 4482 was stopped at the Octroi Naka within Savantwadi limits on September 9, 1967 at about 4 a.m. On a search being made, it was found that the truck contained 80 bags of rice. Those bags were attached after a panchnama thereof was made and the three persons in the truck- accused No. 1 who was the driver, accused No, 2 who was the cleaner and accused No. 3 who was sitting by the side of the driver-were put under arrest. The three accused were then charged under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with Clause 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Food-grai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1891
Vaidya, J.1. This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by one Balkishan A, Devidaval against whom Criminal Case No. 102/5/72 is pending in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court. Victoria Terminus, Bombay. The application involves important points under the Railway Protection Force Act 1957 (Act No. 23 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the 'R. P. F. Act'') and the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 1966 (Act No. 29 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the 'R. P. U. P. Act').2. The above case arose out of a complaint filed by the Inspector, Central Intelligence Bureau, Head Quarters before the Presidency Magistrate, at V. T., Bombay.3. The allegations in the said complaint may be briefly summarised as under:On November 21, 1970, the Assistant Security Officer, Central Railway, Bhusa-wal, intimated to the Chief Security Officer Bombay V. T. that two wagons Nos. ERKC-9447 Ex. HSPG BNDM to Akola and Wagon No. ERKC 75531 Ex. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Heard. Admit. By consent of parties appeal is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and Order dated 30.6.2011 of the First Appeal Court, Pune in Civil Appeal No.293 of 2008 thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed in R.C.S No.725 of 2000 passed by the trial Court. 3 The appellant is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 working for the conservation of nature and environment. The respondent is a Corporation established under the Bombay Provincial Corporations Act, 1949. (Hereinafter called as BPMC ACT) The respondent-Corporation took a decision to construct new roads running parallel to river Mutha in the heart of the Pune city. The suit road is one of such roads and its construction started in the year 2000. The said decision was detrimental to the existence of river Mutha, so appellant society filed a suit for declaration that the Corporation has no right to construct road or structures in Mutha riv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1970CriLJ1296
ORDERWagle, J. 1. Since these two revision applications raise an exactly similar point, these two applications are being disposed of by one judgment although the incidents are different and the accused are also different.Criminal Revision Application No. 249 of 1969.2. The prosecution case was that upon in. formation received by P. S. I. Dixit of Savantwadi that rice being transported from Kolhapur District to Savantwadi, a truck MYD 4482 was stopped at the Octroi Naka within Savantwadi limits on September 9, 1967 at about 4 am. On a search being made, it was found that the truck contained 80 bags of rice, Those bags were attached after a panchanama there. of was made and the three persons in the truck accused No. 1 who was driver, accused . No. 2 who wag the cleaner and accused No. 8 who was sitting by the side of the driver-were put under arrest, The three accused were then charged under Section 7 (i)(a)(ii) of the Essential commodities Act, 1955, read with Clause 12 of the Maharasht...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(5)BomCR752
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel; Shri Page for the petitioner State of Maharashtra, Shri Adhik Shirodkar for respondents No. 1 to 7 and Shri Satpute for respondent No. 8.2. This is the petition filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking to challenge the Order dated 20-10-1997, passed under section 68-I of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'N.D.P.S. Act') by the Competent Authority, appointed by the Central Government under section 68-D of the N.D.P.S. Act. Under the said order, out of 11 properties which are mentioned at Exhibit A-1 to the petition, four properties mentioned at Sr. Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have been held to be illegally acquired within the meaning of Clause (g) of section 68-B of the N.D.P.S. Act and the said properties have been ordered to be forfeited to the Central Government, free from all encumbrances, as contemplated by sub-section (3) of section 68-I of the said Act. In respect of the property at Sr. No. 6 in Exhibit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(6)BomCR261
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. None present for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, though served. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 15-3-1999, passed by the Industrial Court dismissing the complaint filed under section 28 r/w Items 5 and 9 of the Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter called as 'the said Act'. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been denied the benefits payable in terms of the Settlement dated 28-8-1991 even though such payments are being made to other workmen. The defence of the respondents is that the petitioner has no furnished the necessary declaration in terms of the Clause 24 of the Settlement and considering the provisions of the Clause 25 of the Settlement, the respondents are not liable to pay the dues to the petitioner and that therefore there is no case of any unfair labour p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Since detailed arguments are canvassed based on exhaustive pleadings, we proceed to dispose of this writ petition finally with consent of parties. 2. Rule. Respondents waive service. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus or any writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing the respondents to forthwith withdraw and cancel the notices impugned in the writ petition (Annexures B-1 to B-9) dated 23rd May, 2013 and not to take any steps including holding any inquiry in pursuance thereof. The first petitioner is a private trust governed by the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. The indenture of Trust dated 14th January, 1892 duly registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Bombay is relied upon and the petition is affirmed by the second petitioner, who is one of the trustees of the first petitioner Trust. He has been duly authorised to file this petition. 4. Annexure...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1 Both appeals arise out of the common judgment and order, therefore, they were heard together and can be disposed of by common judgment. 2 These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are directed against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2012 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3440/2011. That Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in LPA No.278/2012, who are original Petitioners and they impugned the order passed by the Respondent No.1 State Government dated 30.10.2010 in Revision Application by which the Revisional Authority has set aside the orders dated 20.02.2010 and 22.06.2010 of the Collector, Nagpur and the Commissioner, State Excise respectively. The Revision Application before the Minister was filed by the Appellant before us in LPA No.278/2012 as its application seeking FLIII licence was rejected. 3 The facts leading to the filing of these Appeals are that the Appellant in LPA No.278/2012 made an application for gran...
Tag this Judgment!