Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(3)BomCR705
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The challenge in all these petitions is to the constitutional validity of Sections 33A and 33B of the Bombay Police Act, as amended by the Bombay Police (Amendment) Act, 2005. The bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly on 21st July, 2005 and by the Legislative Council on 23rd July, 2005 and has now come into force. The Sections under challenge may be gainfully reproduced:33A(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made by the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate under sub-section (1) of Section 33 for the area under their respective charges, on and from the date of commencement of the Bombay Police (Amendment) Act, 2005,-(a) holding of a performance of dance, of any kind or type, in any eating house, permit room or beer bar is prohibited;(b) all performance licences, issued under the aforesaid rules by the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate or any other officer, as the case may be, being the Licensing Authority,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2009]312ITR193(Bom); [2008]16STT263
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. By this order, we propose to dispose of 44 Notice of Motions, all filed in the Income Tax Appeals preferred against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Notice of Motion Nos. 2281 of 2008 in Income Tax Appeal (Lodging) No. 1814 of 2008 has been filed by the Assessee while remaining 43 Notice of Motions have been filed by the Commissioner(s) of Income Tax. The prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeals vary from 18 days to 1474 days. Normally, we would have proceeded to deal with each application separately but the grounds for condonation of delay noted by Commissioner(s) of Income Tax are more or less common and, in fact, in most of the cases identical, hence we propose to discuss some of them in detail. Notices of Motion Nos. 2330 of 2008, 1898 of 2008, 2335 of 2008 and 2059 of 2008 have been filed by the Commissioner(s) of Income Tax while Notice of Motion Nos. 2281 of 2008 has been filed by the Assessee.2. There is no dispute to the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009ACJ585; 2008(6)MhLj941
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.Relevant Facts:1. Mohd. Riyazur Rehman Siddiqui met with an accident on 30th September 1986 on Bidar-Udgir road while he was driving a motor-cycle No. MZV-6233. According to him, while he was driving the vehicle at a very moderate speed, the driver of jeep bearing No. MZV-6437 who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently gave a dash to the motor-cycle and resultantly he sustained injuries. A case under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code was registered with the Police Station, Udgir. The Appellant resultantly of the accident sustained permanent disability to the extent of 48%. He filed a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being Case No. 26, of 1987 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, which was contested and decided finally by the Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 5th May 1989 awarding compensation of Rs. 51,000/- only with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the claim petition. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(1)ALLMR469; 1998(3)BomCR386; (1998)1BOMLR389; 1998(3)MhLj164
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and also a Public Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The said society has been established with a view to impart education and cater to the educational needs of the Pupils for Vidarbha region. The petitioner Society established the N.K.P. Salve Institute of Medical Sciences and Research and Smt. Lata Mangeshkar Hospital at Digdoh Hills, Hingna Road, Nagpur and applied to the State of Maharashtra for granting permission to establish and administer a Medical College on 'no grant-in-aid' basis at Nagpur. The State Government by its Resolution dated 22-6-1990 granted permission to petitioner society to establish and administer a Medical College at Nagpur from the academic year 1990-91 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(3)BomCR597
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. This first appeal arises out of the land acquisition proceedings. The appellants in this case is the State of Maharashtra. The appellants have preferred this first appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 21st August, 1995 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Nashik, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 257 of 1990. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the trial Court has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq. metre for the land acquired. The trial Court has also granted solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on the total market value and additional compensation at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the notification published under sub-section (1) of section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 i.e. 1st February 1982 till the date on which the possession was taken viz. 28th November, 1988. The Lower Court also granted interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the net amount of the compensation from the date of possession for the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004CriLJ4312
R.M.S. Khandeparker, J.1. Heard the leaned advocate for the petitioners and the learned APP for State. Perused the records.2. The petitioners challenge the vires of Sections 31 and 32, as amended, of the Prisons Act, 1894, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', being in violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and for further direction against implementation of those provisions of law.3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that, at the relevant time, the petitioners were lodged in Bombay Central Prison at Arthur Road, as under-trial prisoners in Bomb Blast Cases No. 1 of 1993. They were detained for a period exceeding seven years at the time of the filing of the petition. Section 31 of the said Act, which dealt with the provisions relating to the availability of certain facilities regarding food, clothing, bedding and other necessaries to the under-trial prisoners and civil prisoners as well as Section 32 which dealt with restriction on transfer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2010(1)BomCR409; 2009(111)BomLR4178
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Earlier this petition was filed on the ground of inaction on the part of the respondents to take a decision. Thereafter, it appears that decision was taken and the petition is now challenging the Government Notification dated 3-2-2007.2. This petition has been filed by a society which claims that it was in possession of the land bearing Survey No. 12 (Part), situate at Kohdhava Khurd, Pune. The respondent No. 2 published a draft development plan for the City of Pune. In the said draft, the land mentioned above was shown as reserved for public garden. The petitioner raised objection to the said reservation by submitting various representations. The draft development plan was sanctioned by respondent No. 1 in 1975. The layout of the said land was approved in 1973 and 1975. Earlier to this, there was a sanctioned development plan of the year 1966, in which the petitioner's land admeasuring 3.54 acres was shown to be reserved for a garden. While sanctioning the layout of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1996Bom121; 1997(4)BomCR357; (1995)97BOMLR614
ORDERDhanuka, J. 1. The Goa Agricultural produce Market Committee impugns the Award dated 26th July 1993 made by the Deputy Collector (LA) Panaji, under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The issue as to whether the application made by the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.30/94 on 27th April, 1987 for re-determination of compensation was filed in time or not stands finally concluded by decision of this Court dated 17th Feb. 1993 in Writ Petition No. 6/93. The said decision has acquired finality and binds all the parties to the said writ petition. The Goa Agricultural Produce Market Committee was respondent No. 4 in the said Writ Petition No. 6/93. It is not open to us to allow the parties to reopen the controversy already decided by this Court by its earlier judgment as foresaid as no appeal or review petition was filed against the said judgment. As regards the merits of the said Award is concerned, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 30/94 is agreeable to deletion of be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR4251
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for, (a) a declaration that Final Plot No. 103 in Town Planning Scheme, Pune No. III is reserved for parking and not for school, (b) directions to the respondents to forthwith allow the petitioners to develop their land for the purpose of reservation for parking, (c) quashing and setting aside the notice dated 2/12/1997 issued under Section 88-89 of M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 as being illegal, (d) quashing and setting aside the Resolution No. 94 passed on 29/6/2000 along with such further actions based on the same by respondent No. 1-Corporation, (e) directions to the respondents to withdraw the proceedings if initiated under Section 37 of the M.R.T.P. Act to change the land use of parking on the subject plot, (f) declaration that the possession allegedly taken on paper of the subject plot by the Municipal Corporation is illegal, null and void and to restore the said possession in its original form.2. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR32
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 4. Civil Application No. 345/2009 filed by the respondent No. 4 is also heard finally.2. Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides for time limit of two years for passing award from the date of publication of notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was contended that provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act are applicable to the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTP Act' for brevity) for MIHAN project. It was submitted that notification under Section 126 of the MRTP Act, which is equivalent to declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act wa...
Tag this Judgment!