Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-17-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. 2] By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings of the case culminating in the eviction order of the appellate authority dated 31st January 2007 and to quash and set aside the (I) Notice of Termination dated 10th/14th February 1995, (ii) the Notice of Eviction dated 19th April 1999 (iii) Order of 2nd respondent and (iv) the order of appellate authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, dated 31st January 2007 in Misc.Appeal No.261 of 2001. 3] The proceedings are under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. (for short PPE Act). The petitioner states that it was a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and continued to be so till the eviction ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-30-2012
Reported in : AIR2012Bom101; 2012(2)ALLMR737; 2012(3)MhLj669
ORDER1. The appellants (original plaintiffs) are the daughters of respondent No.1 (original defendant No.1). Respondent No.2 (original defendant No. 2) is the bank from which respondent No.1 has taken a loan which has not been repaid. Respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act).2. The appellants have sued to protect the share that they claim in the property mortgaged to the bank by respondent No.1. They claim 2/3rd share therein as coparceners of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) consisting of themselves and respondent No.1. As the daughters of respondent No.1 they claim in the capacity as coparcener under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 (HSA) which came to be substituted by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 (39 of 1956) which came into effect from 9 September 2005 (HSA).3. Upon the creation of the mortgage in respect of the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-11-2012
The Reference : On a difference of opinion between Mr.Justice D.K.Deshmukh and Mr.Justice R.G.Ketkar, constituting a Division Bench, in an appeal arising out of the decision of a Single Judge, the following question of law has been sent for reference to a third judge: “(i) In view of the repeal of the Bombay Rent Act and enactment of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, is the Bombay Municipal Corporation justified in taking into consideration the actual amount of rent received or receivable by the landlord in relation to the units which are let out, but where the lease is exempted from the provisions of the Rent Act for determination of annual letting value with effect from 1 April 2000?” The Controversy: 2. Section 140 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, provides for the levy of taxes on buildings and lands in Brihan Mumbai. These taxes which are called property taxes comprise of: (i) water tax; (ii) additional water tax; (iii) sewerage tax; (iv) additional sewera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-07-2012
R.G. Ketkar, J. 1. This confirmation case as also the Criminal Appeal No.528 of 2008 arise out of the judgment and order dated 03.08.2011 passed by the Special Court (under the N.D.P.S.Act), Greater Mumbai, in N.D.P.S.Case No.60 of 2002. 2. By that order, the learned Sessions Judge found Gulam Mohammad Malik (hereinafter referred to as ‘Accused No.1’) guilty for having committed offence under section 8 (c) punishable under section 20(b) (ii) punishable under section 31- A of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the ‘Act’) - for having been previously convicted for the offence punishable under section 8 (c) read with Section 20(b) vide Sessions Case No.01/2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha, Himmatnagar, Gujarat State. Consequently, the Special Court sentenced the Accused No.1 to death and ordered that he shall be hanged by neck till death. The execution of the sentence is subject to the confirmation of this Court. The Spe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-11-2012
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for respective respondents waive notice. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 2. Writ Petition (St.) No. 10937 of 2012 is to issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Order or directions in the nature of writ of certiorari thereby quashing and/or setting aside the impugned order dated 9th April, 2012 passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the petitioners' proposal for regularization. (Exhibit-A). The petitioners have sought further relief to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus thereby seeking directions to the respondents to reconsider the proposal for regularization in respect of the petitioners' property i.e. building known as Green Heritage, situated at Plot Nos. 79 and 80, Sector20, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, on the basis of the material placed on record and accept the same in accordance with law. 3. The first petitioner is a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-24-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan The appeals and stay applications are directed against order-in-original No.10/2011/C dated 17.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur. 2. The facts arising for consideration in this case are as follows. The main appellant, M/s. Malerkotla Steel Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd., is manufacturer of iron and steel rerolled products. Intelligence was received that the appellant was indulging in clandestine production and removal of the said goods. Accordingly, a search was conducted in the factory premises of the appellant on 30.1.2009 by the Central Excise authorities at Nagpur. The stock verification conducted revealed shortage of raw materials to the extent of 106.990 MT and excess stock of finished goods which were not accounted for in the production register, to the extent of 49.051 MT. Searches were conducted in the combined office premises of M/s. Trimurti Ispat Ltd., Kalmeshwar, M/s. Malerkotla Steel Rolling Mill Pvt. L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : May-07-2012
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. The respondents waive service. Since all the affidavits are filed, pleadings are complete, with the consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2} This writ petition together with other petitions involve identical questions of fact and law, they were heard together and are, therefore, disposed off by this common judgment. 3} The State of Goa has initiated proceedings for Acquisition of the lands of the petitioners for the construction of the New International Airport at Mopa in Pernem Taluka. 4} The Notification and Declaration in that behalf was issued on 25th July 2008 and 28th July 2009, respectively, under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the L.A Act”) and under section 6 of the L.A Act. Both are impugned on various grounds to which we will advert a little later. 5} The petitioners claim to be owners/tenants of the properties indicated against their names/ the names of their ancestors i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Sep-25-2012
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenge is to decision of the Government and / or of Respondent 5 - Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, to establish the Model College at Ghansavangi in Jalna District at “Exhibit-F” with the petition. Said document is dated 16.3.2011 and a proposal to that effect appears to have been placed before the Management Council of Respondent 5 University through it. Resolution of the Management Council also of same date, forms part of this exhibit. State of Maharashtra is respondent 1 while the Union of India is respondent 2 in petition. University Grants Commission (UGC) is respondent 3 while the Hon. Minister for Higher and Technical Education is joined in his personal capacity as respondent 4. 2. On 21.11.2011, this Court did not grant any interim relief to the Petitioner educational institute as admissions in the subject college were already over in July,2011 and open...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Sep-25-2012
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenge is to decision of the Government and / or of Respondent 5 - Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, to establish the Model College at Ghansavangi in Jalna District at Exhibit-F with the petition. Said document is dated 16.3.2011 and a proposal to that effect appears to have been placed before the Management Council of Respondent 5 University through it. Resolution of the Management Council also of same date, forms part of this exhibit. State of Maharashtra is respondent 1 while the Union of India is respondent 2 in petition. University Grants Commission (UGC) is respondent 3 while the Hon. Minister for Higher and Technical Education is joined in his personal capacity as respondent 4. 2. On 21.11.2011, this Court did not grant any interim relief to the Petitioner educational institute as admissions in the subject college were already over in July,2011 and opening of the Mod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Oct-20-2012
U.D. Salvi, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 31.12.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.307/2009. 2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad convicted and imposed sentences on the appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 on different counts as under: i) The appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 were sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for six months each for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. ii) The appellant/ accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for one month for commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. iii) The appellant/ accused No.2 in Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!