Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)84BOMLR67
Bhonsale, J.1. The petitioners who are respectively an education society, local managing committee and the college run by petitioner No. 1 Society, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the resolutions passed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Executive Council, Nagpur University, Nagpur dated May 23, 1977 and March 11, 1978 recommending setting aside of order of dismissal of respondent No. 4 and asking petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 to reinstate respondent No. 4 in the service of the petitioners and also refusing to withdraw the above mentioned recommendation at the instance of petitioner No. 3 i.e. Hislop College, Nagpur.2. Petitioner No. 1 - Hislop Education Society Nagpur, runs Hislop College in Nagpur - an educational institution of some repute. Petitioner No. 2 is the local managing committee of the Hislop College. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the Nagpur University, its executive council and the grievance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition at the instance of the tenant takes exception to the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court under provisions of Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short the said Act) as upheld by the first appellate Court. The premises in question is a ground floor shop that is used for running business by the petitioner. According to the petitioner said premises were let out on monthly rent of Rs. 500/- per month. According to the petitioner said amount of rent was being regularly paid till the year 2000 after which the respondent-landlord stopped accepting the same. Subsequently money orders were sent by the petitioner for the months of March, April and May 2000. On 29.04.2008 notice came to be issued by the landlord calling upon the tenant to pay arrears of rent for the period from 01.07.2000 to 30.04.2008. The arrears were demanded at the rate of Rs. 5000/- ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1969)71BOMLR500; 1967MhLJ9
Patel, J.1. These three petitions are filed by rice millers and raise important questions regarding the validity of the Maharashtra Scheduled Foodgrains (Stocks Declaration and Procurement and Disposal, Acquisition, Transport and Price Control) Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1966) and the action taken by the State Government thereunder. This Order was promulgated under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as amended from time to time. Shortly stated, by this Order the Government prohibited all private dealings in certain kinds of foodgrains and made it compulsory to be sold to the Government or its agent. The said Order contains 20 clauses and, as now finalised, it applies to paddy and rice, Jowar, Nagli, Pohas and Kurmuras. Clause 3 of the said Order requires periodical declarations of stocks by every person who holds more than ten quintals of the scheduled foodgrains. Clause 4 gives power to the Collector or any officer authorised by him to call for declaration ...
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 : 2007(2)ALLMR110; 2007(1)BomCR329
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The creative judicial interpretation of Article 21 by our constitutional Courts, has broadened our vision, in understanding the expression 'right to life'. Preventing degradation of our ecology and protection of our environment, including the right to clean drinking water and pollutant free atmosphere are some of its facets. Ecological factors as judicially understood, indisputably are relevant considerations in Town and Country Planning Statutes. Courts to preserve the environment and ecology of 'Earth' our home for the present and future generations whilst interpreting environmental laws, lean in favour of protection. The questions raised by the petitioners and which fall for our consideration, give rise to a host of legal issues. Can the State, citing its financial inability to provide housing to encroachers on public and private lands residing in structures which came up before 1-1-1995 to whom it has granted protection from eviction or its inability to free RG a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)87TTJ(Mumbai)183
ORDERBeharilal, A.M.The departmental appeal for the assessment year 1992-93 has been directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XVII, Bombay, dated 16-11-1995. The departmental appeal and the cross-appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94 have been directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Central IV, Mumbai, dated 17-2-1997. One consolidated order is being passed for the sake of brevity and convenience; as the issues involved in these appeals are common.2. The assessee is a partnership-firm engaged in the wholesale business of dry fruit and business in real estate comprising of construction of buildings of residential flats, office premises, shops, godowns, row houses, etc. which are sold to prospective buyers. For both the divisions of business the assessee maintains one set of account books. For the construction division, the assessee has adopted estimation of profit on work-in-progress and on that basis profit is estimated every year showi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(4)BomCR799; (2007)109BOMLR677; 2007(119)ECC403; 2007LC403(Bombay)
V.C. Daga, J.1. This application is under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act' for short) seeking direction against the Tribunal to state the case and raise and refer the question of law framed in para-4 of the said application arising from paras-6 to 13 of the impugned order dated 19th August, 1999 passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai ('Tribunal' for short). 2. At the commencement of the hearing of this application, learned Counsel for the respondent assessee raised two preliminary objections. Firstly; relating to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and try the application in question. Secondly, relating to the tenability of this application under Section 130A of the Act. It has, therefore, become necessary to first decide the preliminary objections before proceeding to hear the application on merits.FACTS:3. The respondent-importer pursuant to the show cause notice issued under Section 28(1) of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1998Bom157; 1998(2)ALLMR207; 1998(1)BomCR214
ORDERM.B. Shah, C.J.1. These appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 5th/6th December, 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge, directing the appellants to grant Certificates of Service as provided under section 80(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to the respondents, who have attained the rank of Lieutenant in the Executive Branch of the Indian Navy prior to 14th August, 1986. Section 80 of the Act was deleted from 14th August, 1986. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 490 of 1997 and Writ Petition No. 924 of 1997 have prayed for grant of similar Certificate of Service.2. These appeals and writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts. Contentions raised and submissions made in all these matters are identical. Hence, all these matters are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, we would refer to the facts stated in Appeal No. 149 of 1997.3. The learned Additional Solicitor-General appearin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(6)MhLj598
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule. Respondent waives service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.2. By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners pray that this Court should quash and set aside the orders dated 22nd September 2005, 7th April 2008 and 24th September 2008.3. The Petitioner is the Original Respondent in Eviction Application No. 12 of 2004 which was on the file of the Competent Authority, Konkan Division. That Application has been filed by the Respondent seeking eviction of the Petitioner from the premises on the grounds, which are more particularly enumerated in the Application.4. The Respondent filed this Application invoking Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.5. In terms of the relevant statutory provisions, the Petitioner - Respondent applied for necessary leave to defend. The Competent Authority granted leave to defend on 28th July 2004. Thereupon, the written statement was filed after which the proceedings...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
MohitS. Shah, C.J. 1. The following questions have been referred for our opinion: (1) What is the scope and ambit of the power of revision under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999? (2) Whether a revision application under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 would be maintainable in respect of a procedural order passed under the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit arising out of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act ? 2. For giving answers to the above questions, we propose to proceed in the following manner:Para Nos.Page Nos.(i)Indicating brief facts leading to this reference3 to 64 to 5(ii)Setting out the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties7 to 96 to 15(iii)Statutory provisions1016 to 18(iv)Giving broad analysis of rival submissions on maintainability of revision.1118 to 20(v)Relevant consideration for correct perspective12 to 1920 to 26(vi)Brief exposition of the principle on maintainability of revision20 to 2426 to 31(vii)Analysis o...
Tag this Judgment!