Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR843; 2007(5)BomCR316; 2007(5)MhLj313
D.G. Karnik, J.1. This civil revision application was heard by me in September, 2006. However on account of change of the roaster, the petition was made de part-heard. Thereafter, by an order of the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, it has been re-assigned to me. I have again heard the counsel for the parties.2. The facts lie in a narrow compass and are mostly undisputed. The respondent is an owner of the property known as Mercantile Chambers situate at Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai 400 001. The premises admeasuring 5759 sq.ft. situate at 3rd floor thereof (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises') were let out by the respondent to the petitioner several years ago. Though the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated by a notice to quit dated 17th October, 1992, it continued in occupation of the suit premises by reason of the protection against eviction enjoyed by the tenants under the Bombay Rents and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Bombay Rent Act'). On repeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(4)BomCR695
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. These two writ petitions which challenge the Notification of the State Government dated 26th June, 1991 issued under sub-section (3) of section 18 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 and its further consequential notification dated the same issued under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 20 of the said Act can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment. However, reference to the parties in this judgment would be as in the Writ Petition No. 240 of 1991 except where W.P. No. 243 of 1991 is particularly considered and referred to.2. The facts in Writ Petition No. 240 of 1991 are that the petitioner is the Chair-person of the South Planning and Development Authority and in Writ Petition No. 243 of 1991, the petitioner is the Goa Citizens League, which holds out itself as a Special activist organisation formed with a view to promote social, economic and educational cultural and political interests for achieving the progress and welfare of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. 2] By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings of the case culminating in the eviction order of the appellate authority dated 31st January 2007 and to quash and set aside the (I) Notice of Termination dated 10th/14th February 1995, (ii) the Notice of Eviction dated 19th April 1999 (iii) Order of 2nd respondent and (iv) the order of appellate authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, dated 31st January 2007 in Misc.Appeal No.261 of 2001. 3] The proceedings are under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. (for short PPE Act). The petitioner states that it was a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and continued to be so till the eviction ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(1)ALLMR761; 1998(4)BomCR100
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia, for a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records relating to the Judgement and Order of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, North Zone, bearing No. 1/48/65-RES/(C)-193/Goa/ARNZ/Vol. V dated 8th January, 1993, and quashing the same as also for a declaration that Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited became a deemed Multi-State Co-operative Society registered under the corresponding provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter called 'the Central Act'). The first petitioner is the Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and the second petitioner is the Chairman of the Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited. Facts leading to the writ petition are as follows.2. The first respondent, Shri G.S. Patil, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, North Zone, Mapusa, Goa, had issued a notic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR164; 2008(6)BomCR789; (2008)110BOMLR2621; 2009(2)MhLj56
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that the orders dated 26/3/1999 and the order dated 12.10.1999 (Annexure P-1 collectively) be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages and consequential benefits.2. By the orders impugned in this petition, the petitioner challenges the imposition of major penalty of dismissal from services. This penalty was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, Dy. Director (Vigilance), Government of Goa. In review petition, being Review Petition No. 5/99 which was filed by the petitioner before the Governor of Goa, the Governor of Goa has, by his order dated 12.10.1999 modified the punishment of dismissal from service and substituted it by compulsory retirement.3. At the relevant time, the petitioner was serving as Asst. Director of Transport, Transport Department of Government of Goa. He joined the services in 1975 as Assist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging orders revoking their registration as Multi System Operators. These registrations have been granted under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1944 (for short the Rules?). The petitioners are engaged in the business of securing signals from television channels distributed to them through cable operators to the end users. Since the two petitioners carry on identical business, but the facts leading to the revocation of registration of their case are slightly different, we would set out the facts in Writ Petition No. 58 of 2015 firstly. 3. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and operating from the address mentioned in the cause title. It is engaged, inter-alia, in the business of cable distribution service as Mult...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The two petitioners in this petition, who claim to be students belonging to minority community, question the legality and validity of the requirement specified in clause 18(18) of the Information Brochure for admission to Post Graduate Technical Courses for Academic Year 2016-17 (Brochure). The impugned clause requires minority candidates seeking admission to Post Graduate Technical Courses to attach 'Domicile Certificate' alongwith the application form for Centralised Admission Process (CAP). 3. Mr. C.K. Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioners, has made the following submissions: (a) The very requirement of "domicile" in State of Maharashtra in order to be considered against the minority quota in minority institutions within the State of Maharashtra, is ultra vires the provisions contained in Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2000Bom211; 2000(2)ALLMR48; 2000(2)BomCR556
ORDERR.M. LODHA, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the 1st defendant vessel to be condemned in the sum of Rs. 45 lacs along with interest at the rate of 18%f per annum and for direction that the 1st defendant vessel to be sold and the proceeds thereof to be applied towards the satisfaction of plaintiffs claim. The plaintiffs have claimed damages and prayed that 2nd defendant be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of Rs. 45 lacs along with 18% interest thereon.2. The plaintiffs are the parents of Mr. Arvind Dube who died on 16-8-1996 on board the 1st defendant vessel when she was lying at Kandla Port. The 1st defendant is the vessel M.V. 'Umang' registered in St. Vincent and Grenadines. The 2nd defendant is a Liberian Shipping company and owner of the 1st defendant vessel. The 3rd defendant is the local agent of the 1st defendant vessel. The suit has been filed in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court on 11-3-1997 and at that time the vessel was lying ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(4)BomCR796; [2000(86)FLR825]
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 23-7-87 given by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar, rejecting the Reference (I.D.A.) No. 28/85 referred by the State Government for adjudication of the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent College praying for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. The Labour Court has rejected the reference for want of jurisdiction to entertain the industrial dispute in view of the other independent remedy available to the petitioner under the Poona University Act of 1974.2. The facts are in a very narrow compass. By an order dated 7-1-1982 the petitioner was appointed as a peon in the prescribed scale with effect from 1-7-1981 on purely temporary basis and the appointment was subjected to approval of the Director of Education. It was also stipulated that his services were liable to be terminated without any notice and without assigning any reasons. It is an admitted position that he cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1969Bom401; (1969)71BOMLR214; ILR1969Bom864; 1968MhLJ797
Deshmukh, J.1. This is an appeal by the Union of India owning and administering the Central Railway as well as the South Eastern Railway. A large part of the fact is not in dispute. The plaintiff no. 1 Messrs, Kalinga Textiles Private Limited, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act having their office at Rajgangpur, admittedly booked 100 bales of cotton from Akola on the Central Railway for being delivered at Rajgangpur on the South-Eastern Railway. The railway receipt in that behalf was no. 9208/11 dated 2-6-1957. A complete wagon was hired and allotted for that purpose and it started with the goods train on the same day. The evidence in the case shows, and it is not now in dispute, that fire took place first at Khapri station on 4-2-1957 and the wagon in which the plaintiff no. 1's cotton bales were loaded was set on fire. After some half-hearted attempts to find out the cause of the fire and to try to extinguish it, a decision was taken by the Assistant Station Master, ...
Tag this Judgment!