Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR3650
A.V. Potdar, J.1. Rule.2. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is finally heard at the stage of admission.3. By the present writ petition under Article 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, initially the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus for direction to the first respondent to decide the appeal challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30th August 2008, with further prayers for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the sonography machine in the light of directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7973/2008 dated 17th December 2008. During pendancy of the writ petition, the prayers were added to quash and set aside the order dated 30/08/2008 passed by the 2nd respondent suspending the registration of Genetic Clinic of the petitioner at (Exh.I, paper book page No. 39) and to quash and set aside the order dated 24/03/2009 (Exh.L at paper book page No. 52) passed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR3186
1. The appellants herein claimed themselves to be the successors intitle as well as in possession of the properties survey Nos. 53/1B, 52/1, 52/2, 133 and 46/2 situated at Chahurna (Bk), Taluka and District Ahmadnagar, from the original defendant Nos. 7 & 8 in Special Civil Suit No. 13/1956 decreed on 13.04.1956 by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmednagar. The appellants are the objectors in Special Darkhast No. 57/1977, to the executability of the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 13/1956. The objections raised by the appellants to the executability of the decree are rejected by the Collector, Ahmednagar vide his order dated 24.12.2007 and also by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar by his order dated 07.01.2008. The appellants preferred writ petition No. 276/2008 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before learned Single Judge challenging the aforesaid orders. The said writ petition is dismissed by the learned Single Judge, in motion ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR2668
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of on 18.9.2002 by this Court and said Judgment was challenged in Special Leave Petition by the present appellants before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hon'ble Apex Court vide its Order dated 13.10.2004 delivered in Civil Appeal No. 1416/03, remanded the matter back to this Court in view of the Judgment of Full Bench of this Court in case of Rahul Sharad Awasthi v. Ratnakar Trimbak Pandit and Ors. : 2004(5)BomCR50 . It appears that on 18.9.2002, this Court took a view that Section 4 of Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, especially in relation to Section 100A thereof was applicable retrospectively and, therefore, letters patent appeals already filed were not maintainable. This Court, at that time, granted certificate under Article 134, r/w Article 133 of the Constitution of India to the appellants in LPA No. 7/96. In view of the orders dated 13.10.2004 of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present appeal has been listed before t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR673; 2009(111)BomLR1989; 2009(4)MhLj163
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, has challenged in this writ petition judgment and order dated 26/9/08 delivered by The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ('MAT' for short) in Original Application No. 324 of 2008.2. The 1st respondent holds B.E. (Civil) degree. In 1976 he joined as Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State Government. He was recruited directly through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission as Asstt. Executive Engineer Class I in 1982. In due course he was promoted as Chief Engineer. He worked as Chief Engineer Water Resources Development Centre, Aurangabad. In November, 2006 he was transferred as Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Local Sector, Pune. He was working in that post from 4/11/06. Even though he had not completed his normal tenure of three years, he was transferred as Chief Engineer M.M.R.D.A, Mumbai by order dated 10/1/08. By the same order respondent 2, who was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR603; 2009(111)BomLR2056; 2009(4)MhLj869
Naresh H Patil, J.1. The respondent filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices under Items 6,9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act of 1971'). The respondent contended in the application that he was in the employment of the appellant Corporation since 1-2-1985 as a Cleaner and subsequently from the year 1986 he was working as Fitter but he was paid wages of Cleaner. It was contended by him that he was neither confirmed in service nor given regular pay scale. In the contention of the respondent he worked continuously uninterruptedly. The work was available with the appellant continuously. Some of the workers who were working in the same capacity were made permanent, they were receiving salary of Rs. 2000/- per month. The respondent worked for more than six years without proper pay scale and continuity of service. It was contended that the appellant committed unfair labour pra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR408; 2009(111)BomLR1612; 2009(4)MhLj779
Naresh H. Patil, J.1. The appellants filed return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961, as amended upto 1975, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act'). According to the appellants, they possess six agricultural lands i.e. Survey Nos. 163,149,147,17,5 and 164 at village Mangrool, Taluka Pathri, District Parbhani comprising of 161 acres 6 Gunthas. During enquiry conducted by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (for short, 'SLDT'), under the old Ceiling Act, out of total area of 65 acres 9 gunthas from Survey Nos. 5,164 and 163 was already declared as surplus. After deduction of 65 acres and 9 gunthas, the holding of the appellants was of 95 acres 37 gunthas. Out of the said lands an area of 9 acres 39 gunthas was acquired for Jayakwadi project. 2 acres of land from land Survey No. 5 was acquired for Road and an area of 17 gunthas was Pot-Kharaba. Four acres of land vested in Nala. The appellants, therefore, submit that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR133; 2009(111)BomLR1745
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioners who claim that they are social workers and except Petitioner No. 3, all other Petitioners have been Members of Legislative Assembly of Maharashtra in the past. It is averred that Respondent No. 3 is a body set up by Respondent No. 1 - Union of India which had published a booklet/brochure in the name of 'JAWAHARLAL NEHRU NATIONAL RENEWAL MISSION'. Being interested in the welfare of the people of Maharashtra, the Petitioners have filed this Petition. According to the Petitioners, the action of the Respondents in adopting resolution of repealing the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act, 1976 (herein after referred to as the 'said Act') is in violation of the constitutional rights vested in the people of Maharashtra, more particularly as enumerated in Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 3 and 39 of the Constitution of India and Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are failing to perform their public duties. The State Government, in the Assembly agreed to repeal the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR719; 2009(4)BomLR1451; 2009(2)MhLj925; 2009(3)AllMR40
A.P. Lavande, J.1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 320/2008 and the reference made in Writ Petition Nos. 4910/2008 and 4911/2008 are being disposed of by the common Judgment since the question of law involved in the appeal as well as in the reference is identical.2. We have heard Mr. C.A. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.V. Sohoni, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition Nos. 4910/2008 and 4911/2008 and Mrs. S. Wandile, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 4911/2008 and Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Wandile, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. P.C. Khajanchi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 320/2008.3. In Writ Petition Nos. 4910/2008 and 4911/2008 the learned Single Judge held that the view taken by another learned Judge in Writ Petition No. 2203/08 ( Javed Sheikh Mustaque Patel v. State of Maharashtra and O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1782
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, in a criminal case bearing R.C.C. No. 489 of 1992 whereby respondents came to be acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 7(i), 2(ia)(a) read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) and Section 17, Sections 7(i), 2(ia)(a) read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) and Section 17 along with Section 7(i), Section 2(ia)(a) read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) and Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. Indisputably, the complainant - Food Inspector Shri Sudhakar Patil was duly appointed to work as Food Inspector for local area of Parbhani district. The Chief Officer of Municipal Council, Parbhani was appointed as local health authority vide Government Notification published in the Government Gazette on 15th April, 1983. It is an admitted fact that the respondent No. 1 is a partnership proprietary concern of which the respondent No. 2 is the Managing Partner. T...
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!