Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1992Bom435; 1992(3)BomCR494; (1992)94BOMLR984
ORDER1. The Petitioner, who is the Chairman of Airfreight Limited and claims to be the Director of 14 other Public Companies espousing the cause of litigants in Greater Bombay, by way of public interest litigation has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of the Bombay City Civil Court and Bombay Court of Small Causes (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdic-tion and Amendment) Act, 1986 (Maharashtra Act No. XV of 1987) -- hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act'. 2. Apart from challenging the competency of the State Legislature as regards the impugned Act the Petitioner has also sought a declaration that the Notification dated 20th August 1991 -- Exh. B to the petition, issued by the State of Maharashtra is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 3. This petition raises pure questions of law relating to the legislative competence of the State Legislature. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(3)ALLMR260; 2004(4)MhLj614
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard.Perused the records.2. In both these petitions common questions of law and facts arise and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.In both these petitions, the petitioners challenge the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the land acquisition proceedings, being contrary to the mandate of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act'), inasmuch as that, the award was not passed within a period of two years, from the date of last declaration of the notification under Section 6 of the said Act.3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that, the respondent sought to acquire land for the purpose of Resettlement of Project Affected persons of Upper Pravara (Nilbande) Project, Taluka Akole, District Ahmednagar, by issuing notification under Section 4 of the said Act on 31st of October, 1992, and the same included the land to the extent of 81 Rule from Gat No. 173 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(6)ALLMR771; 2006(6)BomCR510
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 2. The order dated 4.3.2006 rejecting the application for amendment of written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai, is now under challenge before this Court by way of the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed at the instance of the defendants-petitioners, hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants'. 3. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs-respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs', on 11th November, 2003 against the defendants interalia contending that the plaintiffs required a suit premises i.e. plot of land bearing C.S.No.3/590 and 4/590 with the building standing thereon comprising seven flats or dwelling units, garage, covered spaces for car parks, servant quarters and compound, situate at L.Jagmohandas Marg, Mumbai, reasonably for their growing ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR737
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner who is a practising advocate and who also claims to be a public spirited citizen, has approached this Court by way of present Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein, on the strength of Constitutional mandate contained in Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India, he questions the authority of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to hold the posts of `Parliamentary Secretaries' and enjoy the status of Cabinet Minister and also questions respondent Nos. 5 to 7 appointed to different posts in the State administration, as to how they enjoy the status and rank of Cabinet Minister. He also prays that the orders at Annexures `P2' collectively and `P4' collectively relating to respective group of respondents be revoked and cancelled being violative of the Constitutional mandate.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the recent Assembly Elections which were held in May 2007, resulted in the fractured mandate from the elect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(4)BomCR330
M.L. Dudhat1. This appeal is preferred by the Government against the judgment and decree dated 25th of April 1990 passed by the Extra Joint District Judge, Pune in Land Reference No. 75 of 1981.2. The land in question is about 27 acres, 32 gunthas and 8 annas situated at Bhosari, Pune. A notice was issued under section 32(2) of Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the 'M.I.D.C. Act') on 27th May 1968 for acquiring the aforesaid land and, therefore, one has to consider the valuation of the land on 27-5-1968. During acquisition proceedings, the Acquisition Authority, after hearing both the sides, passed an award granting compensation of Rs. 9,700/- per acre. Against the aforesaid award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the present respondents-claimants have filed a reference under section 34 of the M.I.D.C. Act read with section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation before the Extra Joint District ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(2)BomCR314
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. This appeal and the cross appeal are filed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd June 1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Land Acquisition Reference No. 184 of 1986. In the said judgment and decree dated 23rd June 1993 given by the learned District Judge, the learned District Judge has disposed of in all 79 Land Acquisition References. Since in all these matters there is a common question of fact and common question of law arise for consideration, we are disposing of these matters by the judgment as in First Appeal No. 455 of 1994 with First Appeal No. 741 of 1994. Ratio of the judgment given by us will be applicable to all other First Appeals and/or Cross Objections.2. Few facts which are material for the purpose of disposing of these first appeals are as under.3. Appellant No. 2 State of Maharashtra issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for the sake of brevity) f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(4)ALLMR651; 2007(5)BomCR1; 2007(5)MhLj341
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The order of reference dated 16-1-2006, which has occasioned the constitution of this Full Bench, has been passed by the learned Single Judge in view of a divergence of the views of the Division Benches of this Court, the first being in Ramesh Dwarkadas Mehra v. Indravati Dwarkadas Mehra : AIR2001Bom470 and the second in Letters Patent Appeal No. 129 of 1993, Bhagirathi Lingawade and Ors. v. Laxmi Silk Mills, decided on 3-9-1993. The provisions of Section 41(1) of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (for short, 'PSCC Act') and Section 5(4A) of The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Rent Act') crop up for consideration in these petitions. In view of a conflict in the interpretation made by the Division Benches, in the aforesaid cases, on the language of these provisions the learned Single Judge has made a reference to the Larger Bench. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice has accordingly constituted this Full Bench to dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1997Bom267; 1997(3)BomCR493
ORDER1. This is a writ petition filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short, MSEB) through its Executive Engineer (Civil Construction-Maintenance) Division Nasik Road, Nasik, to challenge the order made on 24-8-1995 by the State Government directing the resumption and restoration of the land to the original owner under the 1973 Resolution.2. The Petitioner seeks the reliefs of issuance a 'Writ of Ccrtiorari or any other directions in the nature of a Writ' to quash the order or the recommendation of the Commissioner, Nasik, dated 24-8-1995 and also the order of the Tahsildar, Pathardi, dated 4-10-1995 in execution of the order for restoration of possession of the land to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4.3. The material facts are these :The State Government -- Respondent No. 1 acquired agricultural lands bearing Survey No. 10 admeasuring 1 H 95 R and Survey No. 11/7 admeasuring 1 H 15 R belonging to the respondents No. 3 and 4 along with the land Survey No. 11/8 admeasuring 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom89; (1960)62BOMLR622; ILR1960Bom651
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is a Special Civil Application challenging a notification issued by the Commissioner, Ahmedabad Division; under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, notifying for acquisition final Plots 160 and 163 of the Town Planning Scheme Ahmedabad No. 3 (Ellis Bridge) from the area of the village Shekhpur-Kanpur comprised in the Ahmedabad City. The petitioner owned both these final plots, but he disposes of final plot No. 160 by donating it to a Public Trust on the 5th May 1959. Both these final plots of land, according to the petitioner, are situate within the limits of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and are valuable pieces of land in the Town Planning Scheme. They have an excellent situation commanding the meeting of four different roads and are on the bank of river Sabarrnati. The public purpose for which they have been notified tor acquisition is the construction of the office building of the Executive Engineer of the Ahmedabad Irrigation Division. 2. By cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(2)BomCR369
N.D. VYAS, J.1. As the facts and the questions involved in both the writ petitions are common, they have been directed to be heard together. By this common Judgment, both the writ petitions are disposed of. By Writ Petition No. 5960 of 1988 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur, dated 5th July 1988 whereby petitioner's Execution Application was dismissed and he has also prayed for setting aside of the order passed by the State of Maharashtra dated 1st October, 1984 in its Urban Development Department and has prayed for restoration of the order dated 31st March, 1984 passed by the same department earlier. By Writ Petition No. 173 of 1989 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has again prayed for quashing and setting aside the said order dated 1st October, 1984 and also prayed for quashing the communication dated 16th July, 1986 received from the said Depa...
Tag this Judgment!