Court : Mumbai
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash notification dated 29.3.1984 passed by the third respondent bearing No.HMD 82 MIB 82 Gazetted on 31.3.1984 (produced as Annexure-D) and etc;) 1. The petitioners are said to be owners of land bearing survey no.264 measuring 6 acres 5 guntas at Hinkal, Kasaba hobli, Mysore Taluk and district. The said property is claimed to have been acquired by one Monda @ Thammaya, son of Venkata. The said property is said to have been mutated as "beellu " in the revenue records, as per Order dated 28.4.1988. Prior to the said date, the RTC in respect of the property is said to have reflected the name of Monda. The petitioners claim as the legal heirs of Monda. The second respondent is said to have issued a notification dated 1.4.1981 proposing to acquire the property bearing Survey No. 264 measuring 6 .05 acres for the purpose of formation of a residential layout, Vijayanagar extension. In the n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(4)BomCR561
D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The Additional District Judge at Kalyan, allowed an appeal preferred by the landlord against the decision of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, by which the landlord's suit for eviction came to be dismissed. While allowing the appeal, the Appellate Court has held that a ground for eviction has been made out under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Rates (Control) Act, 1947. The ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(l) is that the tenant after coming into operation of the Act has 'built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence'. 2. The premises in question consist of a one room tenement, being Block No. 8 of a property known as Amarprem Building situated at Subhash Road, Vishnu Nagar, Dombivli (West). A suit for eviction was instituted in 1992 on the ground of (i) Default in the payment of rent; (ii) Nuisance; and (iii) The tenant acquiring suitable alternative residential accommodation. The suit was dismissed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)99BOMLR405
V.R. Datar, J.1. Rule.All these matters are connected and, therefore, this order will govern their disposal. However, petition No. 172 of 1997 is slightly on different footing and, therefore, the final order disposing of the same will be passed separately. The main question involved is regarding the power of the police officer investigating an offence to issue prohibitory order in respect of bank account. Claim is laid upon the provisions of Section 102 Cr.P.C. in that behalf. Certain other provisions are also relied upon and, in particular, Section 105A to G in Chapter VIIA, Cr.P.C. as amended by amending Act 40 of 1993. In order to appreciate the point involved in these petitions, a brief reference to the facts in each petition would be necessary.2. Writ Petition No. 86 of 1997The petitioner herein is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 419 and 420 IPC. The case is registered as CR No. 589 of 1996 by Cuffe Parade Police Station, Mumbai, The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(5)BomCR329
Davare S.P., J.1. Perused the writ petition. Heard Shri. Goyanka, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Warad, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The petitioner is the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and respondent is working as Conductor with it. The factual matrix of the matter are as follows:3. The respondent was appointed as Conductor with the petitioner on 18.3.1981, but was dismissed from service on 30.10.1985 on account of misconduct of remaining absent from duty as per Clauses 10 and 38 of Schedule 'A' of Discipline and Appeal Procedure of the Corporation. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the respondent No. 1 filed appeal before first Appellate Authority of the Corporation on 27.2.1989, contending that he was involved as an accused in Sessions Case No. 99/1985 and was detained in jail since 28.4.1985 up to 7.2.1989, he was convicted by the Sessions Court and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by judgment and Order dated 31.12.1985. He also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR827; 2007(6)BomCR609; 2007(5)MhLj187
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. In furtherance to the Notification dated 24th September, 1986, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the lands belonging to the Claimants were subjected to compulsory acquisition by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The lands were part of the Revenue Estate of Village Roadpali, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, admeasuring about 8040 square metres and forming part of Gats No. 118/0, 128/0 and 170/0. These lands were acquired for a public purpose, viz., for completion of the project for New Bombay in terms of the Notification issued by the Government. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, vide his Award made under Section 11 of the Act in year 1989, awarded to the Claimants compensation for acquisition of their lands at the rate of Rs. 200/- to Rs. 230/- per square metre. Dissatisfied by the awarded compensation, the landowners preferred References under Section 18 of the Act. All the 22 References were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. PREFACE:- A) This writ petition is one more in the series of matters where jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked not by rightful owners but builders and developers, to reclaim the vacant lands in excess of ceiling limits, which have already vested in the State. The surplus land holders and owners of these lands very well know that their fate is sealed for they are divested of their right, title and interest in these lands by due process of law. However, they are propped up by builders and developers with ulterior motives to file such petitions by relying on the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Principal Act) in the State of Maharashtra with effect from 29th November, 2007. Though physical possession of these lands is with the State and not challenged by the owners and surplus vacant land holders at the relevant time, now they raise such challenge being financed by builders and dev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. In the light of the order that I propose to pass, I am not required to refer to the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates in their entirety since it is likely to lead to certain observations which would affect the respective rights of the litigating sides. 3. The facts relevant for deciding these two petitions are as under: (a) Both the Petitioners were working as Helpers to the Cooks on daily-wage basis from 1984 to 2001. (b) In 2001, the Agricultural Universities in the State of Maharashtra resorted to mass retrenchment. (c) Several of such employees are litigating against such Agricultural Universities. (d) By an advertisement dated 21.07.2004 issued under the signature of the Registrar of the Respondent/ University, all the retrenched daily-wagers were informed about the recruitment of four posts as Cooks. (e) The advertisement was locally circulated in the University...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants-employees have questioned the judgment dated 15.10.1997 delivered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2618/1997 since reported at 1998(3) Mah.L.J. 897 (Executive Engineer vs. Ananta and Others). They were the respondents in the said petition. The learned Single Judge has, in said judgment, found that services of present appellants are not covered under the terms of Kalelkar Award and hence their termination cannot be faulted. However, they are found to be entitled to compensation as per and under Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act, as retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court earlier had on 4.6.1994 in ULP (Complaint) Nos. 319/1984 to 322/1984 directed the respondent/employer to reinstate these appellants to their formal posts with continuity of service and full back wages. The Industrial Court has dismissed U.L.P. Revision No. 158/1994 filed by the respondent/employer a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)103ITD19(Mum.)
1. These two cross appeals arising out of the order dated 20^th February, 2002,(there seem to be a typographical error) of the CIT(A)-XXIII, Mumbai for the assessment year 1999-2000 were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The major dispute in these appeals relate to the assessee's claim for deduction Under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of the Power Unit Nos. I, II, III & IV The relevant facts are that the assessee is a limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of paper and paperboards, multi layer boards, etc. During the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee installed three windmills for power generation in the State of Tamil Nadu and set up one DG set (identified as unit No. I) for the purpose of generation of power, which was used to meet the requirement of power in the unit manufacturing paper at Dandeli in Karnataka. Similarly another DG set (identified as Unit No II) was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(1)BomCR228; (2008)110BOMLR3120
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Co-operative Housing Society is, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs:(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus or other writ directing the respondent No. 2 to act and transfer the title of plot 'A' admeasuring 10561 sq. metres as per the approved plan in favour of the petitioners.(b) Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent No. 4 to act upon the complaint of the petitioner and take action as per law against the illegal encroachment made by the petitioner and remove the encroachment of illegal construction done by the respondent No. 2 on internal road and on plot 'A'.2. The first respondent to this petition is the State of Goa. In fact, respondents No. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are not the contesting respondents. Respondent No. 2 is the Housing Board which is a Statutory Body, registered un...
Tag this Judgment!