Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(5)BomCR780
ORDERP.S. Patankar, J.1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have made diverse prayers. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has pressed only two prayers prayer (a) (i) of the petition prayed that the interim order dated 15-6-96/16-6-96 passed by this Court be continued to enable the petitioners to complete the fencing in the facts and circumstances of the case. Prayer (a) (i) reads as under:'a) That this Hon'ble Court may pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus and or any other appropriate writ, Order or direction directing the respondents herein as well as the such police officers who may be on duty at the site to:-i) To direct the respondents No. 1 to issue notification under section 51 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 inviting claims from affected persons of loss/damage in the riots and fire that took place in Greater Bombay during the month of January 1993;'2. First we shall give the relev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(3)BomCR705
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The challenge in all these petitions is to the constitutional validity of Sections 33A and 33B of the Bombay Police Act, as amended by the Bombay Police (Amendment) Act, 2005. The bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly on 21st July, 2005 and by the Legislative Council on 23rd July, 2005 and has now come into force. The Sections under challenge may be gainfully reproduced:33A(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made by the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate under sub-section (1) of Section 33 for the area under their respective charges, on and from the date of commencement of the Bombay Police (Amendment) Act, 2005,-(a) holding of a performance of dance, of any kind or type, in any eating house, permit room or beer bar is prohibited;(b) all performance licences, issued under the aforesaid rules by the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate or any other officer, as the case may be, being the Licensing Authority,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1982CriLJ2059
Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of externment dated 27the April, 1981 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone III Greater Bombay externing him outside limits of Greater Bombay and Thane district for a period of 18 months from the date on which he removes himself or is removed outside the limits of Greater Bombay and Thane district.2. It appears from the record that a usual show cause notice under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act was issued on 18th March, 1980 giving the petitioner an opportunity of tendering his explanation regarding the allegations made in the notice. The allegations made in the notice read as under :'(i) That since January 1979 (except during the period you were in custody), in the localities of Marol Village, Sak Baug, Mohili Village, Uday Nagar, Takpada, Chimatpada, Kurla, Andheri Road and the areas adjoining thereto in Greater Bombay your acts and movements are causing and are calculated to cause alarm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(1)ALLMR1017; 2002(3)BomCR343; 2002(1)MhLj504
1. This Writ Petition challenges the order of suspension of the licence issued to the petitioner under the Bombay Police Act for running a place of public entertainment. The petitioner carries on the business of a Restaurant and Permit Room. On 20th January 1994, the petitioner applied for a licence to run a place of public entertainment under the Bombay Police Act. Accordingly licence bearing No. 49/94 was issued to the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22nd January 1998 for keeping his premises open beyond the prescribed time during the period from 19th January 1996 to 27th December 1996. After giving a personal hearing to the petitioner the 2nd respondent on. 11 th August 1998 suspended the licence of the petitioner for 15 days. This suspension was to take effect 30 days after the receipt of the order by the petitioner. The petitioner received the order on 13th August 1998. By a letter dated 21st August 1998, the petitioner informed respondent No. 2 tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1990(2)BomCR297
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Criminal procedure Code has been directed against the order of discharge dated 8th January, 1987 (Exh. 'H') passed by the Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Bombay. The learned trial Magistrate discharged the accused 1st respondent (P.S.I.) on the ground that the petitioner (complainants) did not obtain sanction from the competent authority under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, before filing the complaint.2. The petitioners are original complainants-hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners'. The 1st respondent is the Sub-Inspector of Police attached the Chembur Police Station against whom the petitioners have filed Criminal Case No. 55/S of 1986 for offences punishable under sections 220 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 147 and 148 of Bombay Police Act, 1951. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the Police Officers attached to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(3)ALLMR660; 2002(5)BomCR653
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. These two petitions raise important questions of law with respect to some of the provisions of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'MHAD Act') concerning development of acquired land as well as the provisions of the Development Control Regulations of Greater Bombay, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the D.C. Regulations' or 'D.C.R.') and particularly Regulation No. 33(7) read with Appendix III thereof framed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The petitions raise important questions concerning public policy as to whether the provisions of one beneficial scheme can be insisted to be implemented on lands acquired by the State under other provisions of a statute.2. These questions have arisen in this matter which is concerning a large property known as 'Pimpalwadi' having an area of about 5716.91 sq. metres (or 6805.78 sq. yards) situated in the Mugbhat area of Girgaon, in Southern Mumbai. It consists of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2002Bom65; 2002(2)BomCR300; 2002(2)MhLj305
A.P. Shah, J.1. The constitutional validity of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has been challenged in these writ petitions. This question which is common to all the writ petitions is the only question which arises for consideration and these writ petitions are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which is hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Act, lays down :'Section 3(1) -- This Act shall not apply -- (a)....... (b) to any premises let or sub-let to banks, or any Public Sector Undertakings or any Corporation established by or under any Central or State Act, or foreign missions, international agencies, multinational companies, and private limited companies and public limited companies having a paid up share capital of Rupees one crore or more. Explanation. -- For the purpose of this clause the expression 'bank' means; -- (i) the State Bank of India constituted under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1990CriLJ342
Kurdukar, J.1. One Robin alias Robert Sanna Joseph came to be detained pursuant to the order of detention dated 20th January, 1989 issued under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 by the 1st respondent - the Detaining Authority. This detention order was served on the detenu on 31st January, 1989.2. The 1st respondent is the Detaining Authority - Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay. The 2nd respondent is the State of Maharashtra and the 3rd respondent is the Union of India. At the outset, it must be stated that this writ petition is filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Vakalatnama which is on record is signed by the detenu. But, however, the writ petition has been sworn by one Mohan Gangadhar Mohite, who claims to be next friend of the detenu. The writ petition, therefore, is not sworn by the detenu himself. In the body of the writ petition, no-where the next friend has set out as to what is the source of his knowledge to state that c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi330; ILR1969Delhi426
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. On the complaint dated 30-1-1968 by Shri S. Vanchinath, Income-tax Officer, Section X (Central), Bombay, against the petitioner company alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 409 and 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, a case for investigation was registered by the first respondent and investigation thereon started by the second respondent acting under the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter called the Act).The petitioner has challenged the legality of this investigation on the following grounds, viz.,(1) The Delhi Special Police Establishment is nto a police force belonging to any State within the meaning of Entry 80 of the Union list of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution and, thereforee, they could nto function under the Act. (2) Assuming that the Delhi Special Police Establishment was a police force for the Chief Commissioner's province, later the Part C State of Delhi, and thus able ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001CriLJ800; 2001(2)WLC632; 2000(3)WLN39
ORDERChauhan, J. (1). The cases, deal with here, have chequered history as there have been several rounds of litigation before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in different forms at different stages and also before this court in bail matters.(2). The instant criminal miscellaneous applications have been filed for quashing the complaint (C.R. No. 403/1996) registered at the Police Station, Kotwali, Pali, as also the further investigation pertaining to offences under Sections 120B, 195, 196, 342, 347, 357, 368, 388, 482 I.P.C. and Sections 17, 58(1)(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the 'N.D.P.S. Act').(3). The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that on 17.10.1996, one Mr. Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, a Practising Advocate filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, alleging that shop No. 6 in Vardhaman Market, Pali, owned by Smt. Amri Bai w/o Shri Jayant Raj had been taken...
Tag this Judgment!