Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-04-1997
Reported in : 1998(1)ALLMR194; 1998(1)BomCR179
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. Shri Govind Ragho Khairnar, the petitioner, by means of this writ petition challenges his suspension vide order dated 28-6-1994, the disciplinary proceedings including the report and findings of the Enquiry Officer, Resolution No. 259 dated 8-7-1996 passed by the respondent No. 1, the show cause notice for removal dated 30th July, 1996 and the Resolution dated 10-10-1996 passed by respondent No. 1 removing him from municipal service.2. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Municipal Commissioner and was confirmed with effect from 28-12-1988 in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, 'the Act'). It is the case of the petitioner that he is very upright officer and has absolutely clean and excellent record of municipal service. On account of his uprightness in working, the petitioner submits that he invited wrath of his superiors and some such politicians whose vested interests were hurt by the petitioner's honest and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-04-1997
Reported in : AIR1998Bom107; 1997(4)ALLMR698; 1997(3)BomCR178
S.S. Nijjar, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for a declaration that the defendant is a trespasser in respect of the suit flat and has no right, title or interest therein or to continue to use the same. He further prayed that, the defendant be ordered to forthwith quit and vacate the suit flat, remove his belonging lying there, and 16 hand over the same to the plaintiff. A claim for recovery of Rs. 7 lakhs as mesne profits is also made. It is further prayed that the defendant be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month from February, 1995 onwards as mesne profits till the date the vacant possession is handed over to the plaintiff. Appointment of Receiver of the suit flat is prayed for as an interim in measure. A prayer for injunction is also made.2. This Notice of Motion has been taken out to the appointment of a Receiver of the suit flat with power to take possession of the flat from the defendant and put the plaintiff in possession of the suit flat on such terms as this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-04-1997
Reported in : 1997CriLJ3031
S.S. Parkar, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay on 16th October, 1992 convicting the appellant under Section 21 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default to suffer further RI for one year. The appellant was further convicted by the aforesaid order for offences punishable under Section 22 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer further RI for one year. The appellant was also convicted by the aforesaid order for the offence punishable under Section 23 read with Section 28 of the NDPS Act and for offence under Sections 135(1)(a) read with Section 135(i) and (ii) of the Customs Act and under Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. However, no sentences were awarded to appellant on these counts. The substantive s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-03-1997
Reported in : AIR1997Bom406; 1997(4)ALLMR223; 1997(3)BomCR354; (1997)2BOMLR504
ORDERTipnis,J.1. It is permissible of the State,under our Consitution,to condemn a person infected with HIV to virtual economic death before the must eventually meet his death due to the ailment is the question before us.The question is of great contemporary significance and importance.2. The petitioner was working as a casual labourer with respondent No. I Corporation, through a contractor in the year 1982.In 1984,the petitioner was interviewed for a vacancy against a regular post by the respondent-Corporation.However,the petitioner was not selected.In the year 1986,the petitioner was interviewed again by the Corporation and,thereafter,was employed as a casual labourer from 1986 till about 1994.The petitioner was required sign a register/muster and was issued a muster card.In the year 1990,the petitioner was directed to go for a medical examination.The petitioner submitted himself to medical examination conducted by one Dr.V.S.Kulkarni who is a panel Doctor for the respondent-Corporat...
Tag this Judgment!