Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(4)BomCR708; [2005]127CompCas752(Bom); (2005)6CompLJ246(Bom); [2005]62SCL175(Bom)
A.P. Shah, J.1. Appeals admitted.2. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, appeals were taken up for hearing. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Appeals are being disposed of by this judgment.3. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order of the learned Company Judge in Company Petition No. 315 of 2004 decided on 23-7-2004. The learned Company Judge by the impugned judgment rejected a scheme of revival of Shree Niwas Cotton Mills Ltd. (now in liquidation), hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'. The scheme has been approved by the overwhelming majority by the shareholders and creditors, both secured and unsecured and the Union representing about 4500 workmen. Not a single creditor including any workman or shareholder or any person connected with the company or affected by the scheme opposed it either before the learned Company Judge or before us. The State Bank of India withdrew its consent only temporarily and that too only after the present Appeals...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1991Bom245; (1991)93BOMLR927
ORDERPendse, J.1. This petition filed by the State of Maharashtra under Article 227 of the Constitution and the group of companion writ petitions filed by the State Government and various claimants are directed against judgment dated July 6. 1982 delivered by Assistant Judge, Solapur, in proceedings commenced under chapter VI of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, for acquisition of large tracts of land admeasuring 540 acres, 26 gunthas and 34 annas situate adjoining the boundary of Solapur Municipal Corporation and within the compass of Solapur revenue village.The Maharashtra Legislature passed the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, being Maharashtra Act No. III of 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to make special provision for securing the orderly establishment in industrial areas and industrial estates of industries in the State of Maharashtra, and to assist generally in the organisation thereof, and for that purpose to establish an Industrial Deve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1957Bom252; (1957)59BOMLR616
Shah, J.1. The petitioner, a resident of village Pali in the district of Thana, is a landlord owning 135 acres of Kharif lands and 70 acres of Warkas lands in the villages of Bhusegaib, Tighar, Nangurle, Venagaon, Parada, Dahigaon, Sapele, Vave, Vavaloli, Tambus and Avalas in Karjat Taluka of Kolaba district. The petitioner pay Rs. 990/-as assessment and local fund cess for the aforesaid lands. In this application the petitioner contents that Bombay Act 13 of 1956, which purports to amend the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948, is invalid. The petitioner urges that when Bill No. 34 of 1955, which subsequently was published as Act 13 of 1956, was submitted to the President for his assent, the President suggested certain alterations, but the bill was not returned to the Legislature of the State of Bombay and was published as an Act: and as the provisions of Art. 201 of the Constitution of India were contravened the Bill was not validly enacted as law. He also contends that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1989Bom339; 1989(2)BomCR445
Dharmadhikari, J.1. Since all these writ petitions involve common questions of proceedings, they were heard together and ate being disposed of but this common judgment.2. A development plan for Nasik City was sanctioned by the State Government and brought into force in the year 1959. In this plan, the lands involved in these writ petitions were reserved for road widening. Thereafter in the year 1975, the said plan was sought to be revised and a revised draft plan was published which cane to be sanctioned on the year 1980 and came into force on 29th of November 1980. In this revised plan also the properties in question were reserved for road widening. On 19th of March 1980 by a request letter to the Collector in that behalf procedure for acquisition of lands was started by the then Administrator of the Municipal Council, Nasik. In its turn the said proposal came to be forwarded BY THE Collector to the Special land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter a notification dated 31st August 1981 cam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR484; 2005(5)BomCR626; (2005)107BOMLR287; 2005(4)MhLj445
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (Amendment) Act 1992 -Maharashtra Act 16 of 1992 - has been challenged in these proceedings. By this amendment, the State legislature inserted Chapter VI-A into the provisions of the parent Act in order to provide for the levy, assessment and recovery of a Development Charge. Sub-section (1) of Section 124A enacts the levy of a Development Charge in the following terms :'124A. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Planning Authority or the Development Authority (hereinafter in this Chapter collectively referred to as 'the Authority'), shall levy within the area of its jurisdiction development charge on the institution of use or change of use of any land or building, or development of any land or building, for which permission is required under this Act, at the rates specified by or under the provisions of this Chapter:Provided that, where land appurtenant to a building is used for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)BomCR156
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard at length the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records as well as written submissions. We have also gone through the various statutory provisions referred to in the course of arguments as also all the decisions relied upon by the learned advocates in their oral as well as written submissions. 2. The appeal and the cross appeal arise from the award dated 23rd June, 1993 passed by the Reference Court of Raigad at Alibag in the Land Acquisition Reference No. 184 of 1986 which is a common award by which the Reference Court has disposed of 79 land acquisition reference cases. The appellants in First Appeal No. 455 of 1994 are the respondents in First Appeal No. 741 of 1995 and are hereinafter called as 'the Government', and the appellants in First Appeal No. 741 of 1995 are the respondents in First Appeal No. 455 of 1994 and are hereinafter called as 'the claimants'.3. The land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, herein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR641; 2008(1)BomCR779
Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging an order dated 22nd December 2006 confirming the order passed by the Controller of Accommodation, Mumbai dated 12th December 2005 in respect of the premises bearing Room No. 32, Second Floor, Gopal Bhuvan, Khed Galli, Kaka Saheb Gadgil Marg, Dadar, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as Requisitioned Premises).2. The facts necessary to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner are these. Petitioner's husband Krishnaji was allotted requisitioned premises in the year 1954 vide allotment Order No. R-9/117-B/ Gopal Bhuvan dated 2nd May, 1954. He retired in the year 1982 and subsequently expired on 20th May, 1997.3. It is the case of petitioner that she resides in the requisitioned premises with her son, daughter in law and grand daughter. They do not have any other place of residence. It is their case that they have been paying rent to the first respondent which in turn was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR41; 2009(1)BomCR275; (2008)110BOMLR2696
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of Mr.C.V.Kale, Counsel for Petitioner, Mr.S.V.Akolkar, Adv. for Intervenor and Mrs.Dangre, Additional Government Pleader for Respondents. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is Ex-MLA and a social worker. The impugned Government Resolutions have adversely affected large number of Housing Schemes and it will also affect large number of individual flat owners in 3 several such Schemes. It is next to impossible to acquire land in the vicinity and to construct and hand over 5 % built up area in today's rate and sell it to Government nominees at Rs. 400/- per square feet of the built-up area, which is the Government pre-determined rate for Government quota flats. The instant petition aims at protecting large number of people, which includes buyers of the apartments, from the undue hardship that may ensue due to implementation of the impugned Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1971]41CompCas377(Bom); [1971]41ITR377(Bom)
1. As these two notices of motion were heard together, it will be convenient to dispose of them any one judgment. Both the above suits arise out of the appointment for a further term of Kilachand Devchand and Co. Private Ltd., the second defendants in Suit No. 522 of 1969 and the fifth defendants in Suit No. 681 of 1969, as the sold selling agents of Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., the first defendants in both the suits. It will be convenient to refer to these two companies hereinafter as 'the private company' and 'the company', respectively. 2. These notices of motion were argued elaborately and at great length and as if their hearing were a dress rehearsal for the hearing of the suits. I propose to set out first the material facts necessary for understanding the matters in controversy between the parties and deal with the other facts while considering the rival contentions under each head of controversy raised before me. The company was incorporated on January 20, 1960, as a result of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR196; 2006(3)BomCR852; 2006(2)MhLj173
ORDERB.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, petitioner who happens to be President of the Zilla Parishad, Washim has challenged the show cause notice dated 30-3-2005 served upon her by Commissioner, Amravati Region, Amravati, respondent No. 3 herein, under Section 16(l)(i) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as '1961 Act'). On the 19-4-2005 after hearing Advocate Khapre for petitioner I have issued notice before admission and directed the petitioner to file her reply to the said show cause notice before respondent No. 3. After hearing learned AGP on 3-5-2005 said respondent No. 3 was permitted to proceed further with inquiry but was restrained from passing final orders to the prejudice of petitioner. Writ petition stands at same stage for last about four months. Advocate Priyadarshan Madkholkar has moved one application vide Civil Application No. 3463/2005 on behalf of a Sarpa...
Tag this Judgment!