Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-31-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)BomCR24
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Writ Petition No. 1052 of 1998 is filed by the State of Maharashtra against respondent No. 1 for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Appeal Forest-3 of 1997 wherein it was held that the land in question is neither 'forest' nor 'private forest' within the meaning of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Aquisition) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). A prayer is also made to set aside the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Bombay Suburban District dated 23rd April, 1985 under section 6 of the said Act. A declaration is sought to the effect that the land bearing Survey No. 345-A situated at village Dahisar is 'forest' and 'private forest' under the Act and as such the land stands acquired and vested in the State of Maharashtra.2. It is the case of the petitioner-State that the land in question was part of original Survey No. 345. Survey No. 345 was admeasuring ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-02-2003
Reported in : AIR2004Bom38; (2004)1BOMLR833; [2003]117CompCas506(Bom)
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Both the appeals are directed against an order dated April 2, 2003, on Company Petition No. 45 of 2002 passed by the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board, since reported in Maharashtra Power Development Corporation Ltd. v. Dabhol Power Company [2003] 117 Comp Cas 467. Appeal (Lodging) No. 4 of 2003 is filed by the original petitioner while Appeal (Lodging) No. 6 of 2003 is filed by the original respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 before the Company Law Board. For the sake of convenience, the original petitioner is hereinafter referred as 'the appellant' and original respondents are referred to by their respective numbers before the Company Law Board. Respondent No. 1 is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent No. 2 is a director of respondent No. 1-company. Respondent No. 3 was also a director of respondent No. 1 till he resigned on June 4, 2002, and was replaced by respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 5 purports to be the managing d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-06-2003
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD(Cri)126; 2003BomCR(Cri)1394
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. By this appeal, the appellants/accused have challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 29th July, 1991, rendered by IInd Addl.Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag, in Sessions Case No. 201 of 1989. The appellants/accused (for short, 'accused' only) along with one Ashok Khanavkar, original accused No. 6, were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, 302, 307 read with Section 149, 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, 'I.P.C.') and under Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. The original accused No. 6 was acquitted of all the charges, whereas the appellants/accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 read with Section 149 and Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC. The accused persons, however, were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-07-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)ALLMR690
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule, By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 16-12-1992, passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Forests Department as well as the order dated 11-2-1993 by the Collector for Mumbai Suburban District and seek consequential reliefs consequent to quashing of the said orders.3. The dispute between the parties relate to a plot bearing No. 35A, situate at Santacruz, Mumbai, hereinafter called as 'the said plot'. The undisputed facts in the matter are that the petitioner-society had applied for grant of plots for the construction of residential buildings to accommodate their members and accordingly the Additional Collector of Bombay Suburban District had, by his order dated 1-2-1967, granted six plots bearing Nos. 34A, 34B, 34-C, 35A, 35B and 35C of the layout approved by the Town Planning Department from TPS VI, Santacruz P28 Nos. 18 and 19 of Andheri Taluka, Bom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-27-2003
Reported in : 2003(5)BomCR743; 2003(4)MhLj391
A.P. Shah, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent. Rule ismade returnable forthwith.2. On 12th November 2002 the 1st respondent MSEB issued Tender Noticebearing No. SP/T-301/11-02 inviting bids for supply of 0.375 MT of high gradeimported coal for Nashik and Koradi Thermal Power Stations. The tenderdocument is divided into three sections. Section 1 contains instruction to bidders,section II contains the general terms and conditions of the contract while sectionIII contains technical specifications. Clause 6.6 of Section 1 reads thus :'6.6 Bidders/Associates should not have/had any criminal proceedingswithin India against the partner(s) Director(s)/employee(s) of thecompany on account of supplies or handling of coal to any organizationwithin the country during the past five (5) years. The bidder shall give an affidavit to the effect that. 'There is no criminalproceedings within India against the partner(s)/Director(s)/employee(s)of the company and/or they are not convicted by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-17-2003
Reported in : 2004CriLJ2177
ORDERB.H. Marlappale, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ for quashing and setting aside the proceedings initiated by the first respondent and registered as Misc. Application No. 225 of 2003 before the Designated Court at Mumbai under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short MCOCA). The petitioner is presently working as Police Sub Inspector attached to the Crime Investigation Unit of crime branch, Andheri of Mumbai Police. Whereas the first respondent claims to be a journalist and associated with the petitioner in the alleged organised crime under MCOCA as has been set out in the complaint dated 6th October, 2003 addressed to Shri Shankar Kamble, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Mumbai with copies to different authorities, overseas as well as within the country.2. On submission of the said complaint dated 6th October, 2003, the first respondent (he...
Tag this Judgment!