Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom1; (1951)53BOMLR717; ILR1952Bom134
Baydekar, J. [1] This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a person, who was originally detained under an order dated 1-4-1948 under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act. It appears that the applicant detenu was arrested in pursuance of tha order on 13-2-1950 and detained in the House of Correction at Byculla under the authority of the order. On 26-2-1950 the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, came into force, and there was consequently passed against, the applicant an order under that Act detaining him under Section 3 of the Act, Subsequently by an order passed by the Assistant Inspector General of Prisons for the Inspector General of Prisons the applicant was transferred from the House of Correction at Byoulla to the Thana Jail, and he was detained there until the applicant made the present application. Under the Preventive Detection Act, 1950, as it stood originally, an order of detention would have remained in force only for a period of one year from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom224; (1965)67BOMLR101; ILR1965Bom394; 1965MhLJ290
Kotval, J.(1) In this Special Civil Application there are challenged two Notification under the Land Acquisition Act whereby the land of the petitioner has been taken by the State of Maharashtra the third respondent before us. On 24th January 1963 a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued under the signature of the Commissioner of Bombay Division, the first respondent before us. Since almost every paragraph of this Notifications argued before us it is worthwhile to reproduce the whole of this Notifications. It runs as follows :-'No. LAQ-B - 7244-B- Whereas it appears to the Commissioner, Bombay Division, that the lands specified in the Schedule herein (hereinafter referred to as the said lands) are needed for a public purpose viz. for development and utilisation of lands as an industrial area. It is hereby notified under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), that the said lands, are needed for the public purpose spe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1975Bom324; 1975CriLJ1828; 1975MhLJ822
Dharmadhikari, J. 1. These Special Civil Applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Criminal Applications under Section 482 of the Criminal P. C., 1973 read with Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are filed for a writ of habeas corpus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for release of the detenus, who have been detained under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, as amended by the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment), Act, 1975, referred to hereinafter as the MISA. These petitions have been filed by the near relations of the respective detenus. Various contentions have ben raised in these petitions challenging the detention and the continued detention of the detenus, which according to the petitioners is illegal. The detenus were detained under the orders of the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, or the District Magistrate of the District concerned vide detention order served on them on different deters in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2010(1)BomCR1; 2010(1)MhLj402
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.Ex praecedentibus et consequentibus optima fit interpretatio The best interpretation is made from things preceding and following.1. Historical background leading to enactment of a statute has been recognized in law as one of the relevant considerations while interpreting a statutory provision and even while examining the extent of its scope and application. Legislative intent and object and reasons of enactment are also accepted as legitimate tools of the law of interpretation. In Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes (Twelfth Edition by P. St. J. Langan) the observation of Sir George Jessel M.R. are noticed when he said, 'the court, is not to be oblivious...of the history of law and legislation. Although the Court is not at liberty to construe an Act of Parliament by the motives which influenced the Legislature, yet when the history of law and legislation tells the Court, and prior judgments tell this present Court, what the object of the Legislature was, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2000Bom100; 2000(1)ALLMR427; 2000(1)BomCR540; (2000)2BOMLR170
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. These petitions relate to the question of acquisition of some of the lands of village Kiwale, Taluka-Haveli, District-Pune, in connection with Mumbai-Pune Express Highway. In the first of the two petitions, there are five petitioners belonging to one Taras family of the said village. In the other petition, there are three petitioners of Admane family and another, one Mrs. Mukta Sunil Chaitanya is having interest in one of the lands of that village under acquisition, though she resides at Nigadi, Pune. Needless to say, the petitioners of the first petition are of village Kiwale.2. It is an admitted position that the acquisition work for the said project was initiated in the year 1995 and the work had commenced. While acquisition proceedings were in progress under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there appeared newspaper items to the effect that the changes are being thought of at different places on the said Expressway, particularly with reference to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001BomCR(Cri)537; (2001)2BOMLR307; 2001(2)MhLj437
A. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. All these five writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek to challenge the respective detention orders passed by Shri R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Birhan Mumbai, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 55 of 1981) with a view to prevent the detenus therein from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. That each of the detenu in the respective writ petition has been detained on the ground that he is a dangerous person of violent character and a weapon wielding desperado indulging in terrorizing activities. The grounds of detention served on each of the detenu mention that they were indulging In criminal activities and had created a reign of terror in the minds of public in the areas of Geetanagar and areas adjoining thereto wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1954Bom327; (1954)56BOMLR199; ILR1954Bom763
Bavdekar, J.1. These are two appeals, one an acquittal appeal & one a conviction appeal. The appeals arose from a case tried by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court, Bombay, in which five persons, accused No. 1, a mehta in the employment of a firm called Messrs. M.M. Baxabhoy & Co., accused No. 2, who is their manager, and accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5, who are the Receivers of the properties of the firm in litigation in regard to it, were charged with offences under Section 161 read with Section 116 & further read either with Section 109 or Section 114, Penal Code for offering to Jibhai Chhotalal Barot, a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Anti-Corruption Branch of the C. I. D., a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for his showing favour to the accused and to Messrs. M.M. Baxabhoy & Co. in the exercise of his official functions. The conviction appeal is by accused No. 2. and the acquittal appeal is, of course, by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1972Bom254; (1972)74BOMLR22
Mody, J.1. Orders of eviction have been passed against the petitioners in these three petitions in respect of 'corporation premises' under the special provisions contained in Chap. V - A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The petitioners in two of the three petitions have filed their petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner in the third petition has filed its petition under Art. 226 challenging the validity of the order of eviction passed against each of them. Various grounds have been taken in each of the three petitions in support of the challenge, but all the three petitions raise one common question which is a question of law. The common question is whether the provisions of Chapter V - A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, and particularly Section 105 - B thereof, violate Arts. 14 and 19(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution and are therefore void. Counsel in all the three petitions stated that they were agreed that the above question ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR352; 2008(6)MhLj886
Vijay C. Daga, J.1. The question presented in these cases require us to resolve two conflicting lines of precedents on the one hand, as the Court stress that 'it is necessary for Court to decide about admissibility of documents before they are exhibited in evidence'. On the other, some of the learned Judges of this Court have no less categorically said that admissibility of evidence and proof of document should be reserved until judgment in the case is given.Contextual Facts:2. It is not necessary to sketch the detailed contextual facts of all cases placed before us. Suffice it to refer two sets of precedents reflecting conflicting opinions giving rise to the present reference.In Writ Petition No. 1902/05, the petitioners, who are original defendants, have objected to the order dated 12th January, 2005 by which the learned trial Judge has marked 126 documents as exhibits with the following directions:All the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs in the list of documents from Sr. No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1995Bom235; 1995(3)BomCR301; (1995)97BOMLR809
ORDERDr. B. P. Saraf, J.1. Mr. Ramdas S. Nayak, the Petitioner No. 1 is a social worker and an Ex-member of the Legislative Assembly of Maharashtra and presently a Corporatorof the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Petitioner No. 2 Mr. Vinay P. Shasrabuddhe, is also a social worker and Executive Director of Rambhau Mhalgi Prabodhini. By this writ petition filed by way of public interest litigation, both these petitioners seek to challenge the power purchase agreement being finalised between the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (Respondent No. 6 herein)'and the Dabhol Power Company, promoted by the U. S. based Enron Corporation, on the ground that it is unconstitutional and against the interest of the people at large. It is contended by the petitioners that this deal, which according to them is shrouded in total secrecy, is blatantly illegal and has grave financial implications on the State Exchequer and the people in general.2. When the matter came up before us on 15th July, 1994, we he...
Tag this Judgment!