Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1987(1)BomCR1; (1986)88BOMLR628
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against a finding in section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (PSCC Act) application which will have the effect of evicting petitioners from flat bearing No. R-17, First Floor, Navroz Baug, Lalbaug, Parel, Bombay.2. The aforementioned flat belongs to a public trust and was let out to the deceased father of the respondent---who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'Amrolia'. The rent payable by Amrolia was Rs. 25/- per , month and the flat measured about 480 sq. ft. comprising two rooms, a kitchen, toilet and passage etc. Amrolia had inducted his son Jamshed together with that person's wife and two children to stay with him in the flat aforementioned. Later on, relations between the inductor and inductees deteriorated. This led Amrolia to file a section 41 PSCC Act petition against Jamshed. An order of ejectment was passed and this was on 7-2-1972. Petitioner No. 2 is the grand-daughter of Amrolia b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)ILLJ961Bom
B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. Complaint (ULP) No. 108/1983 came to be filed before the Industrial Court, Nagpur under Sec. 28 read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1971' for short) by respondent Mohammad Fasahatullah Khan against Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation challenging charge-sheet-cumsuspension order dated March 12, 1983. The case of the original complainant was that as per Subject No. 65 of the Settlement dated April 25, 1956, no workman of the Corporation could be suspended for a period beyond ten days and as the period of his suspension was over on March 21, 1983, the suspension order dated March 12, 1983 ought to have been withdrawn and the complainant ought to have been taken on duty from March 22, 1983. The complainant, therefore, alleged unfair labour practice as set out under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act of 1971 on the part of the Corpo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: 1. By order dated 28-08-2013 notice for final disposal of this writ petition was issued. Accordingly, I have heard Shri M.G. Sarda, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri H.D. Dangre, Advocate along with Shri A.N. Ansari, Advocate for the respondent. Rule. Rule heard forthwith with the consent of parties. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the judgment passed by the learned District Judge-11, Nagpur in an appeal filed under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, 'the said Act'). By aforesaid judgment, the suit for eviction of tenant which was decreed by the trial Court has been dismissed by allowing the said appeal. 3. The petitioner/original plaintiff is a trust registered under provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. As it was in need of the suit premises that was occupied by the tenant, the trust filed Regular Civil Suit No.239 of 2005 for eviction on the ground of the tenant being in arrears of rent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1967)69BOMLR603; 1967MhLJ915
Abhyankar, J.1. As these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution raise one common question of considerable importance in the matter of admissions to Government educational institutions, we propose' to dispose of both these petitions by common order.2. Special Civil Application No. 813 of 1966 is at the instance of Shri Ashok Krishnarao Dhote. To his petition, the Dean, Medical College, Nagpur and the State of Maharashtra have been impleaded as respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Besides them, are also impleaded respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, Shri S.W. Korpe, Shri M.V. Mahajan, Shri V.L. Bonde and Shri V.Y. Dhote respectively, who, according to the petitioner, have been admitted to the Medical College at Nagpur after the petitioner was included in a provisional list of students eligible to be admitted. Petitioner Dhote's case its that he is a student belonging to the backward class. He passed B. Sc. Part I Examination of the Nagpur University in June 1966 which is a qualifying1 Exami...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 04/07/2012 All these appeals and applications taken out therein are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the appellants shall be referred to as accused by their original numbers. 2. Appellants who are the original accused are challenging the Judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, Mumbai whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict Accused No. 1 - Rajubhai Dhamirbhai Baria, Accused No.4 - Pankaj Virendragir Gosai, Accused No.11 - Sanjay @ Bhopo Ratilal Thakkar, Accused No.12 - Bahadursinh @ Jitu Chandrasinh Chauhan, Accused No.14 - Jagdish Chunilal Rajput, Accused No.15 - Dinesh Phulchand Rajbhar, Accused No.16 - Shanabhai Chimanbhai Baria, Accused No. 18 -Shailesh Anupbhai Tadvi and Accused No.20 - Suresh @ Lalo Devjibhai Vasava for an offence punishable under section 143 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. Pursuant to Misc. Civil Application No.1129 of 2011 (Review Application) preferred by Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan (hereinafter referred to as BVB.) through its Attorney Shri T.G.L. Iyer, Civil Lines, Nagpur with a prayer to recall the Judgment dated 12th October, 2011, we had heard the parties and by order dated 26th April, 2012, we had recalled the Judgment dated 12th October, 2011 and restored the Public Interest Petition No.74 of 2010 for hearing afresh. 2. The challenge was to the action of local Planning Authority Nagpur Improvement Trust (hereafter referred to as N.I.T.) for allotment of the land, which was reserved in the Development Plan for Primary School, Secondary School and Playground to Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, an educational Institution/Trust. The petition was accepted as a Public interest Litigation pursuant to orders of the learned Senior Judge of the Bench at Nagpur dt.2.12.2010 and 6.12.2010 and notices were issued to the respondents named in the P.I.L. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(4)ALLMR707; 2006(2)BomCR757; 2006(4)MhLj207
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The appellants were unsuccessful in challenging the entrustment of the subject land on caretaker basis or construction, management and maintenance of 'playground' to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Smarak Samiti (Respondent No. 3) before the learned Single Judge as their writ came to be dismissed by order dated 9th October 1996. Hence this Appeal. 2. The subject piece of land admeasuring 2 acres (8261.90 sq.mts.) comprises of the land bearing C.T.S.Nos.256 (part), 257, 258, 260 (part), 261, 262, (part), 269 (part), 270, 271(part) and 272 (part) and is situate at Vile Parle (East), Mumbai. In the revised final development plan sanctioned by the Government of Maharashtra of the K(East) Ward, Mumbai which came into effect from 29th December, 1992, the subject plot was reserved for 'playground'. However, in the notification dated 12th November, 1992, the subject land was shown as reserved for 'park' but by the Corrigendum notified on 1st January, 1993, the error was corrected...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Chief Justice The petitions raise interesting questions about liability of the State to reimburse fees for elementary and secondary education to children belonging to backward classes and weaker sections of the society. 2. Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 in Public Interest Litigation No. 26 of 2011 are citizens belonging to Scheduled Castes, Vimukta Jati and Nomadic Tribes and Special Backward Classes. Their wards are studying in various private unaided schools in the city of Mumbai and were receiving free ships/scholarships provided by the Department of Social Welfare, State of Maharashtra till 2008-09. Petitioner No.6 is the Association of Parents from Scheduled Castes, Vimukt Jati and Nomadic Tribes. 3. The petitioners have prayed for directions to the State Government to ensure that the schools, where students belonging to the above categories (hereinafter referred to as the specified backward classes) study, do not prevent them from attending schools and participating in school activities d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
R.G. Ketkar, J. Rule. With the consent of counsel, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the First Respondent-Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority ("MHADA") to declare the Second and Third Respondents as ineligible for allotment of a flat in Scheme Code No.238 of MHADA Lottery Scheme 2010 and to process the wait list of the eligible candidates in a time bound manner. 3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the Petition, briefly stated, are as follows: The Petitioner and the Second and Third Respondents applied for allotment of a flat in a housing scheme of MHADA, viz.,Scheme No.238. The Petitioner was declared to be eligible for allotment of a flat and his name appeared at Sr.No.6 in the wait ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2010(112)BomLR154
Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties and at the request of the counsel, taken up for hearing.2. The applicant, who is an advocate, is the author of a book entitled 'Islam - A concept of Political World Invasion By Muslims' ('the book'). The book was published in 2003 by National Publications, 76, Bajaj Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai of which the applicant claims to be the proprietor. The book was translated into Hindi by Dr. Anil Misr.3. In exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code') the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification dated 9/3/2007 ('the Notification') and declared that every copy of the book as well as of the translation thereof shall be banned and forfeited to Government. The Notification is as follows:NOTIFICATIONGeneral Administration DepartmentMantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032Dated the 9th March, 2007Code ofCriminalProcedure, 1973.No. PUB2007-C.N.15/07...
Tag this Judgment!