Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment : (Per Ranjit More, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally by consent. 2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging various notifications issued under Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act 1949 (for short the Corporations Act ), Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act 1965 (for short the Nagar Panchayats Act ), Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act 1961(for short the Panchayat Samitis Act ) and Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1961 (for short Village Panchayats Act ), whereunder the municipal corporation of the city of Panvel is formed from the entire Panvel Municipal Council and 29 revenue villages. 3. We have heard Mr. Dani, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sakhare, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Vagyani, learned Government Pleader for the State of Maharashtra. We have also heard Mr. Kumbhak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. This Commercial Appeal is filed by the Appellant-Original Defendant against the Judgment and order dated 6 June 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge of the Commercial Division in Summons for Judgment whereby, refused an unconditional leave to defend and has granted a leave to defend, but conditional. Preliminary objection to the maintainability of Commercial Appeal. 2. To decide the preliminary objection of the maintainability of Commercial Appeal as filed, as raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents, though the parties have consented to hear the Appeal on merits, we have relisted the matter for hearing on the maintainability as it goes to the root of the matter in view of the confusion prevailing in the Office/Registry after the transfer of such pending summary suits because of the provisions of The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (for short, The Commercial Courts Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. All these four petitions challenge the notification issued by the State of Maharashtra/respondent no.1 herein dated 12th November, 2014 under the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) thereby sanctioning modifications with certain conditions in the Development Plan for the City of Nagpur and for that purpose, amending notification dated 4th November, 2008. 2. The facts and the grounds raised in all these petitions are almost identical with one additional factual challenge insofar as Writ Petition No.5056 of 2016 is concerned. As such, all these four petitions are heard together and decided by this common Judgment and Order. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petitions are as under: In the year 2000-2001, the Planning Authority for the City of Nagpur had proposed to increase width of one road known as Kelibag Road from 15 meters to 24 meters. In the D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. By means of this writ petition filed by the friend of the detenu, the detention order passed by respondent No.2 District Magistrate, Jalgaon, under The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 is being challenged. Respondent No.2 by the detention order dated 16.3.2016 ordered the detention of the detenu Nilesh Dnyaneshwar Desale to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintainance of public order. 2. From the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu, it is apparent that the detention order is based on 4 C.Rs and two in-camera statements. The 4 CRs are C.R. Nos.166 of 2010, 134 of 2015, 135 of 2015 and 21 of 2016. All the 4 CRs are of Bhadgaon police station in Jalgaon. C.R. No.166 of 2010 is under sections 353, 379, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. C.R....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the decision of the Respondent Canara Bank in refusing to the petitioner employment on compassionate ground and /or the benefits of the lumpsum exgratia amount under the 2005 Scheme in lieu of compassionate appointment. Therefore, if the relief of compassionate employment is granted to the petitioner then, in that case the relief of exgratia payment to be paid would not be available. 2. We may at the outset observe that the application which was made by the Petitioner for compassionate appointment was well in time, however, the manner in which the Petitioner was treated by the Respondent-Bank, as evident from the correspondence, in our opinion, lacked absolute human sensitivity. For the present, we stop at this. 3. The Petitioner's father Mohan K. Singh Bisht was working with the Respondent-Bank as Armed Guard at Currency Chest, Fort branch of the Respondent. On 14 July ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Wadane, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioners have challenged the award dated 10.3.1977 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer respondent no.3 by which the land of the petitioners bearing Survey No.112/3 (Gut No.463) admeasuring 5 Acres 4 Gunthas has been acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation of project affected persons. The petitioners have challenged the award mainly on the two grounds that the physical possession of the land has not been taken from the petitioners and no compensation of the acquired land has been paid to them. 3. Initially the above mentioned properties were recorded in the name of grandfather of the petitioners and after his death, the properties are succeeded by the petitioners and name of one Haribhau, eldest cousin brother of the petitioners, has been recorded as per the mu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.M. Borde, J. 1. The question that is referred for our consideration is, as to "whether the order passed by the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred under section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, confirming the order passed by the externing authority under section 56 and 57 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 can be construed as an 'order' within the contemplation of explanation to Rule 18 of chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960". 2. In view of explanation to Rule 18 of The Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the expression 'order', appearing in clauses 1 to 41 means an order passed by any judicial or quasi-judicial authority empowered to adjudicate under the above mentioned statute. Thus, it is essentially required to examine as to whether the order passed in an appeal by the State Government under section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is an order passed under quasi-judicial authority or whether it shall be construed as an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Sangitrao S. Patil, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. A short but important question that is involved in this Writ Petition is whether the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board holding a juvenile in conflict with law guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code would be a disqualification for him to join the services in Army. 3. The petitioner completed his Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with distinction on 9th June, 2015. Respondent no.4 initiated District-wise open ground recruitment process for his Department on 27th July, 2015. The petitioner appeared before respondent no.4 and participated in the recruitment process. His medical examination was conducted. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for written examination on 29th November, 2015. Respondent no.4 published a list of successful candidates, wherein the name of the petitioner was in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Rule. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia challenging (i) the termination letter dated 27 September, 2012 issued by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2 terminating the lease dated 29 October, 1935; and (ii) the Show Cause Notices ( SCNs ) both dated 18 February, 2013, issued by Respondent No.4 under Sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the PP Act ). 3. The property in question is all that piece and parcel of land admeasuring approximately 1036.71 sq. mtrs. bearing plot No.26 (old RR No.1245) and cadestral Survey No. 10/384 of Colaba division together with the building standing thereon consisting of ground + four floors, two garages and a pump-house (hereinafter referred to as said property ). At the outset, we must mention here that it is not in dispute before us that the 1st ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
P.C. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the judgment and order dated 1st November 2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune, whereby the appeal of the petitioner under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the Public Premises Act) has been rejected, confirming an eviction order. 2. The petitioner claims to be the successor of one M/s.Excel Phospho Chemicals (Excel for short), which according to the petitioner came to be amalgamated in proceedings in Company Petition No.533 of 2005 under an order dated 28th October, 2008 between one STS Chemicals and the Petitioner herein. The order passed by the High Court and the amalgamation scheme is placed on record in the paper book of this petition. 3. The respondent No.1 Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., (for short Respondent) is a Government Company. There is no dispute that the premises in question belonging to the respondent are public premises within t...
Tag this Judgment!