Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(4)BomCR473; 2002(1)MhLj231
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners pray that it be declared that the continued requisition of petitioners premises viz. Block No. 10, Room No. 3, 2nd floor, Vasant Niwas No. 2, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty Sea Face, Bombay is illegal and ultravires the provisions of the Bombay Rent Acquisition Act, 1948 and for direction to respondents to rescinded the order of requisition in relation to the premises in question and delivery of possession of the said premises to the petitioners.2. Briefly stated the petitioners case in the writ petition is that the premises afore-referred were requisitioned by respondents 1 and 2 in the year 1950 under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. The petitioners called upon respondents 1 and 2 to hand over quiet, peaceful and vacant possession of the requisitioned premises because the requisition of the premises in question could not continue beyond reasonable period. The petitioners amended the writ petition vide draft amendment dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(4)BomCR779
Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioners are owners of lands in respect of which proceedings for acquisition were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).The petitioners had earlier moved this Court by a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 6022 of 2005, challenging the declaration made under Section 6, dated 23.6.2005 which was published on 22.8.2005. A learned Bench of this Court by an order dated 21.3.2006 set aside the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the area of 54 hectares and 16.30 acres and remitted the matter to the land acquisition officer for fresh inquiry in terms of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act.3. Pursuant to those directions, a notice was issued to the petitioners for an inquiry to be conducted under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, read with the Rules framed by the State of Maharashtra.Subsequent to the notice and after giving a hearing to the petitioner, the Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1958Bom167; (1957)59BOMLR22; ILR1957Bom120; (1957)IILLJ23Bom
Chagla, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the petitioner who was a member of the Bombay City Police Force against an order of dismissal dated 8-12-1954. On the 21-7-1953 a notice was served upon him to show cause why he should not be suspended. On the 24-7-1953 he submitted his reply and ho was suspended on the 27-7-1953. Charges were furnished to him on the 2-11-1953 and the charges briefly were, first, that he joined one Rebello in engaging in trade in respect of certain watches which had been smuggled into India by Rebello, that he also contracted a debt in respect of these watches because although a sum of Rs. 2510/- was due to Rebello he had only paid him a sum of Rs. 1,400/-, and that his whole conduct appearing in these transactions was prejudicial and likely to throw discredit on the discipline and reputation of the Police Force. The second charge was that he was slack in his supervision, and the third charge was that he was found in his residence on the 16-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(3)BomCR465; 2003(2)MhLj316
C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Both these petitions have been placed before us pursuantto an order passed by the Division Bench (Coram: R.K. Batta& J.P. Devadhar, JJ.) on April 16, 2002.2. Dealing with the questions raised in the above petitions asalso in other matters, and after hearing the 'learnedadvocates for the parties at length', the Division Bench feltthat prima facie contradictory views had been expressed insome of the decisions as to whether the provisions of theMaharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions ofService) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'theAct'), would or would not apply to Polytechnic institution,which is a technical institution. The Division Benchobserved that the question raised before it related Pharmacyinstitution, which was also a technical institution. Therewas also a controversy as to whether the Maharashtra Employeesof Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation(Amendment) Act, 1990 (Maharashtra Act No. XXXII of 1990),was declarato...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR681; 2008(4)MhLj908
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for final hearing. Mr. Kanthak, learned Advocate General waive service on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the acquisition proceedings after the service of notice dated 5.11.2007 under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act). The only prayer made in the writ petition reads thus:(a) For the writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing acquisition proceedings initiated by the notification at annexure 'A' as same being lapsed and consequently the award and notice at annexure 'B'.4. Annexure 'A', referred to in the prayer, is Section 6 notification dated 9.10.2004 and annexure 'B' is the notice dated 5.11.2007 under Section 12(2) of the Act. The award under Section 11 was passed on 22.9.2006. Initially, the challenge was on the ground that the award ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1981Bom175a; (1981)83BOMLR166; 1981MhLJ566
Dharmadhikari, J.1. In these two writ petitions the Ordinance issued by the Governor viz. the Maharashtra Ordinance No. VIII of 1980 providing for the dissolution of Osmanabad and Parbhani Zilla Parishads, temporary postponement of elections and appointment of Administrator is challenged by the office bearers as well as Councillors of the Osmanabad and Parbhani Zilla Parishads. The main challenge to this Ordinance is based on the legislative competence of the Governor to issue such an Ordinance which provides for postponement of the General Elections to these two Zilla Parishads up to and inclusive 30th June, 1981 i.e. beyond six weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature which is scheduled to assemble on 8th Dec., 1980. The said Ordinance is also challenged on the ground that it is issued in the mala fide exercise of the power conferred upon the Governor by Article 213 of the Constitution of India.2. It is an admitted position that these two Zilla Parishads were constituted some tim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(3)ALLMR85; 1999(4)BomCR528; 1999(3)MhLj10
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This is a revision application against order dated 7th August 1997 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 165 of 1992 by the Additional District Judge at Mapusa dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners who are the defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 147 of 1990. The said appeal was preferred by the petitioners in the lower Appellate Court against the order dated 31st August 1992 which was passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 232/90 in the said suit by the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Bicholim. By the impugned order the said appeal was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The trial Court by the said order dated 31st October 1992 had allowed the application filed by the respondent for temporary injunction against the petitioners.2. Shri U.S. Kolwalkar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order, submitted that the respondent had approached the Civil Court with a specific plea that the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)BomCR200; (2003)2BOMLR88; 2002(4)MhLj181
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This group of four Writ Petitions was taken up together for motion hearing as common question in respect of Government Resolution dated 10th October 1973 is raised. All these Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, we shall refer to the facts obtaining in Writ Petition No. 5160 of 2000. The petitioners are the real brothers and it is their case that 0.81 hectares of land was acquired out of land bearing the then Survey No. 86/2 (presently Gut No. 365) for the public purpose, namely, for resettlement of the Project affected persons, by issuance of notification under Section 4 in the year 1973, Section 6 in the year 1975 and award was passed on 10th March 1977 by the Land Acquisition Officer, determining the compensation for the compulsory acquisition of petitioners' land. The petitioners accepted the amount of compensation as per award. The petitioners relying on the Government Resolution dated 10-10-1973 have set ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1971Bom174; (1970)72BOMLR698
Desai, J. 1. This is an appeal on behalf of the original respondents from the Judgment and order of Mr. Justice Vimadalal dated September, 28, 1967, granting an order of injunction restraining the original respondents from assessing or reassessing the Colaba Land and Mills Company Limited hereinafter referred to as the Mills Company to income-tax for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1955-56. 2. It is sufficient to notice that in the Company petition No. 221 of 1958 the Official Liquidator was appointed Interim Liquidator of the Mills Company by an Order dated May 1, 1959. By an Order dated October 7, 1959, the Mills Company was ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator was confirmed as Liquidator of the Mills Company with all powers under Section 457 of the Companies Act 1956. By six different Notices dated August 23, 1966, issued under Section 14 of, the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle I (8), Bombay, recorded in respect of the assessment years 1950-51 to 1955-56 that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(1)ALLMR29; 1999(1)BomCR442; 1999(1)MhLj159
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. The petitioners, whose lands were sought to be acquired by the Central Government for respondent No. 5 seek to challenge by this petition the acquisition of their lands bearing Survey No. 504, situated at Malad.2. The petitioners are the trustees of F.E. Dinshaw Trust, which is a public charitable trust registered with the Charity Commissioner. The Trust is the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 504 (part), which is the subject matter of acquisition by respondent No. 3 in Case No. L AQ/329. The said lands were sought to be acquired for the public purpose namely for construction of staff quarters for the employees of Post and Telegraph Department being a purpose of Union of India. Since the said land was subsequently being acquired for the employees of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (M.T.N.L.) for construction of the staff quarters, the General Manager, M.T.N.L. has been, by amendment of the petition, added as respondent No. 5 to this petition. For the purpose o...
Tag this Judgment!