Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-15-2016
A.S. Oka, J. THE FACTS OF THE CASE 1. The petitioner which is a public charitable trust has filed the present PIL for challenging the decision of the Pune Municipal Corporation to construct a road through hills which have been successfully afforested by the Social Forestation Department of the State Government. A resolution was passed by the General Body of the second respondent-Pune Municipal Corporation being Resolution No.532 (for short the impugned resolution?) on 27th February 1996 for construction of a 60 feet wide road (for short the proposed road?)through the hills/hills slope from Paud Phata Road upto the gate of Balbharti building complex. It is pointed out in the petition that in the draft revised Development Plan for the city of Pune which was published in the year 1982, the proposed road was shown. However, while sanctioning the draft Development Plan, in exercise of the power under section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 (for short `the MRTP Act'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-01-2016
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. The Appellant, who stands convicted by the Judgment and Order dated 30th March 2009 of Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No.700 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 333 and 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for six months; and an imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one year, respectively, by this Appeal challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts of the Appeal can be stated as follows:- On 29th August 2002, PW-1 PSI Jayendra Sawant was on night duty at Pant Nagar Police Station, Ghatkopar. At about 12:55 am, he received secret information that the thieves, who had stolen away vehicle, are in Sai Leela Hotel at Ghatkopar. He, therefore, gave message to PW-4 Head Constable Rajendra Ghadge, who was on night patrolling duty, to come to Sai Leela Hotel. He also rushed to the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Feb-08-2016
Oral Judgment:(B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to decide their representations and to take a policy decision of relaxation of any of the conditions which would come in the way of granting any right, title or interest in respect of forest lands occupied by them. 3. The petitioners have further approached for a direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to grant right and title and 'patta' in respect of forest lands occupied by the petitioners and others on the line of the 'patta' granted to the agriculturists in the adjacent districts of Bhandra and Gadchiroli as per the provisions under Sections 4(3), 4(5) and 4(6) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). 4. It is the contention of the petitioners tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-12-2016
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. The Appellants, who stand convicted by the Judgment and Order dated 31st December 2008 in Sessions Case No.7 of 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for one month and for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w. 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer S.I. for one month, by this Appeal challenge their conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts of the Appeal can be stated as follows:- Appellant No.2 is the son of Appellant No.1. Deceased Lalasaheb was the brother of Appellant No.1. They had two other brothers by name Dattatraya and PW-4 Kundalik. Deceased Lalasaheb was given in adoption to one Yeshoda Kadam and his name was entered into the property of Yeshoda's husband Ramchandra Kadam. Appellant No.1 wanted to sell the ancestral property the agricultural land. His brothers Datt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-10-2016
Cav Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. On 30 March 2012, while dealing with Writ Petition No.126 of 2012, a learned Single Judge of this Court was confronted with two judgments, both rendered by Division Benches of this Court, on the point involved, namely whether a retired teacher can be a member of the Inquiry Committee to inquire into the misconduct of Respondent no.1 appointed as Assistant Teacher in Petitioner no.2 school? 2. The management was aggrieved and dissatisfied with the findings of the School Tribunal: firstly, that the constitution of the inquiry committee was defective; And secondly, that the inquiry and the punishment imposed on this teacher were both bad in law. The School Tribunal therefore directed the management to reinstate the School Teacher with full back wages but reserving liberty to the management to conduct a fresh inquiry against him. 3. One Division Bench sitting at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.5867 of 2008 (Leelatai d/o. Annapa Patil Vs. The State o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Mar-17-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. G. Agni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. The above Writ Petition seeks for a direction inter-alia to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 10.07.2014 and 30.10.2014 and the impugned notices dated 31.10.2011 and 20.11.2013 issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as the SARFAESI Act ) being illegal and bad in law. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioners are that the petitioner no.1 appointed one Mr. Ajay Verma, proprietor of M/s. Aesquire Estates to develop a plot of land belonging to the petitioner no.1. The said Mr. Ajay Verma availed a loan from the respondent no.1 by offering a security of the petitioners' land with building. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-23-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. Index Sr.No.ContentsPage No.1Judgment Title.12Events-9 The Petitioner-Borrower-Blue Coast Hotels Limited (BCHL)'s case.9IFCI-Respondent No.1's case.12ITC Limited-the Purchaser's case.173High Court Proceedings.234Relevant provisions of SARFAESI Act.25 The Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002.36 Transfer of Property Act, 1882.445The submissions and Judgments by BCHL in WP No.222 of 2015.486Events and submissions of BCHL in Writ Petition No.1150 of 2015 referring to Section 14 Application.517Submissions and Judgments in Writ Petition No.2486 of 2015, to set aside the auction and the sale.578Judgments in opposition, and in additional in above Writ Petition No.2486 of 2015 by ITC.599Basic submissions of IFCI/ITC and supporting Judgments.59 COMMON REASONS 10Scheme and object of the Act.6511BCHL prayers and reliefs in respective petitions revolving around the property (Park Hyatt Hotel).7712 Description of the Immovable Properties including of Agriculture and moveable ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-13-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 19th August, 2013 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane (for short 'Caste Scrutiny Committee') whereby the application of the petitioner for validation of her caste certificate, certifying that she belongs to 'Halba scheduled tribe' has been rejected invalidating the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. 2. Conspectus of facts as would fall for our consideration are thus : The petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Dental Sciences course. In June 2012 at the time of filing of the petition the petitioner was studying in the first year in respondent No.3-Institution. The petitioner claimed to belong to the 'Halba' tribe which is listed as a schedule tribe in the Presidential Order. A caste certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mumbai Suburban District dated 30th Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-06-2016
P.C.: 1. The applications are moved for pre arrest bail as the applicants/accused are facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments Act) in C.R. No. 316 of 2013 registered with Oshiwara police station, Mumbai. The offence is registered at the instance of one Gurupreetsingh Anand on 16th August, 2013. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that in the year 2000 one Vijay Ishwaran and Joseph, the founders of QI Group formed a company under the name and style Gold Quest International Private Limited . The applicants/accused also joined the said group in 2006. Gold Quest International Private Limited used to sale gold plated coins. In the year 2000 the rate of gold was Rs. 5,000/- per 10 gms., however, they used to sale the gold plated coins for Rs. 30,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : May-06-2016
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. A vital issue emerges in this petition:- "Whether under Rule 16(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 ( MEPS Rules for short), issuance of a notice to the temporary / probationer employee before arriving at a conclusion that he/she has voluntarily abandoned employment would be a necessity?" 5. Considering the conspectus of the matter, I had invited the learned Advocates practicing in service law to render their assistance in this matter. I have thus heard the learned Advocates for the litigating sides, as well as, those learned Advocates. 6. The petitioner / management has challenged the judgment and order dated 24.9.2015, delivered by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, by which, Appeal No. 5 of 2013, filed by the appellant / employee Respondent No.1 herein, has been allowed an...
Tag this Judgment!