Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-03-1996
Reported in : AIR1996Bom389; 1996(4)BomCR414; (1996)98BOMLR87
1. In this petition preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Petitioner who is original defendant No. 1 in the suit, seeks to challenge the order dated 29-11-1991 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs (Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein) was triable by that Court and that the said Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. 2. The original plaintiffs who are respondents No. 1 and 2 herein filed a suit against the present petitioner/defendant No. 1 and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. It was inter alia averred in the said suit that the plaintiffs were owners in respect of the property being land bearing City Survey, No. 370(B) admeasuring about 12090 Square meters and structures standing thereon. One portion of such property comprising of a structure consisting of ground and first floor, was let out to the defendant No. 1. The tenancy was only with regard to the structure and not of land and it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-18-1996
Reported in : 1996(5)BomCR451
M.S. Rane, J.1. The petitioner in this petition has questioned the legality and validity of the election of the respondent herein to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Palghar, district Thane Constituency No. 62 held on 12-2-1995 the result of which was declared after counting on 12-3-1995 in which the respondent was declared as elected having got highest number of votes being 55,399 votes as against 33,250 secured by the petitioner. In all there were five contesting candidates who secured votes less than the petitioner herein. Exhibit 'C' to the petition is the copy of the result as declared by the Returning Officer of the said constituency. The said Palghar constituency is a reserved constituency specifically for the members belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. According to the petitioner he belongs to the schedule tribe viz. Hindu Malhar Koli.2. The petitioner has challenged the election of the respondent principally on the ground that she does not belong to the Schedule Tribe f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-25-1996
Reported in : 1997(2)BomCR51; (1996)98BOMLR824; 1997CriLJ617; 1997(1)MhLj412
Agarwal, J.1. Both the petitions raise similar challenge and can, therefore, be disposed of by a common order. Petitioners in both the petitions have filed complaints in different police stations. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 301 of 1996 filed complaint with the Senior Inspector of Police, Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar against the respondent No. 3 for the alleged offences under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act. The case was registered vide C.R. No. II 69 of 1995. As far as this complaint is concerned, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ulhasnagar has passed an order granting 'B' Summary. Petitioner, in the said petition, has impugned has said order in Criminal Writ Petition No. 301 of 1996.2. As far as the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 302 of 1996 is concerned, he filed a complaint at the Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Kalyan alleging commission of an offence against employees of the Kalyan Municipal Corporation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-14-1996
Reported in : 1996(4)BomCR74; (1996)98BOMLR218
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is an election petition filed by the petitioner challenging the election of the respondent Mr. Hitendra Thakur, who is a returned candidate from Vasai Constituency, Thane District, Maharashtra. Though there were earlier three more respondents, who were respondents 1, 2 and 4, their names have been deleted as per the order passed by this Court on 4th December, 1995 and hence now there is only one respondent who is the returned candidate. After pleadings were completed, issues were framed on the request made on behalf of the respondent, Issues 1 to 3 are heard as preliminary issues. Heard the petitioner in person and learned Counsel for respondent.2. The petitioner was one of the candidates in Vasai, No. 61 constituency in the State of Maharashtra. There were in all 14 candidates including the petitioner and respondent. The election was originally scheduled to be held on 12-2-1995, but it got postponed and ultimately the election was held on 26-2-1995. The res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-11-1996
Reported in : 1996(4)BomCR209; (1996)98BOMLR159
M.B. Shah, C.J.1. Writ Petition No. 3681 of 1983 filed by Kamruddin N. Shaikh and Writ Petition No. 4726 of 1986 filed by the Maharashtra Land Development Corporation were dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 13th/17th March, 1992. This Court arrived at the conclusion that Survey No. 345-A situated at Dahisar, Thane District which subsequently became Sub-District of Bandra, Bombay Suburban District, admeasuring 209 acres was a Forest Land. With regard to this land bearing Survey No. 345-A and other properties, it is an admitted fact that Bai Fatimabai widow of Haji Alimohammed Haji Cassum had filed Suit No. 3415 of 1947 before this Court for administration of the estate of her deceased husband and for other reliefs. The Court had appointed Receiver in respect of the suit properties. The Court Receiver had invited offers for sale of the properties and the highest offer of Rs. 13,50,000/- made by one Khimal Lalchand was accepted on 27th March, 1962. The Receiver was direct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-19-1996
Reported in : 1997(3)BomCR4
N.D. Vyas, J.1. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the Notification dated 30th December 1995 issued by the State of Maharashtra purportedly under section 2(u) of the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development Act, 1981 (NABARD Act for short) declaring Respondent Nos. 5 i.e. Apex Co-operative Bank of Urban Banks of Maharashtra and Goa Ltd. also as the State Co-operative Bank within the meaning of the said provision viz., Section 2(u) of the NABARD Act; two directions/orders dated 25th January 1996 and 14th May 1996 issued by the 2nd Respondent i.e. Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, advising/directing deploying of funds by all Urban Co-operative Banks under section 70 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, (State Co-operative Act for short) and the licence given by the Reserve Bank of India (R.B.I. for short) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-20-1996
Reported in : 1997(4)ALLMR397; 1997(4)BomCR271
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The petitioners who claim to be animal lovers and engaged in welfare of animals, in educating the general public concerning the necessity of treating all animals with compassion and to be the activist interested in ensuring that all laws concerning prevention of cruelty to the animals are enforced, have approached this Court with the complaint that the statutory authorities are either hesitant or negligent in taking appropriate steps to prevent the cruelty to the animals that is being inflicted in the course of the game of bull fights taking place in the State of Goa. According to the petitioners, bull fights are in contravention of section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1968, hereinafter called as 'the said Act'. It is the contention of the petitioners that inspite of their efforts to bring this fact to the notice of the authorities concerned, such illegalities are being committed in the State of Goa and further that inspite of requests to...
Tag this Judgment!