Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. This writ petition is entertained as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as per the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 30/10/2007. Briefly stated, the grievance is about an activity in the shape of an educational institute and a students hostel in residential area. It is alleged that the construction is raised without legal sanction from the competent authority. Respondent No. 5 before this Court is that institute while Respondent No. 4 is the Gram Panchayat which claims to have sanctioned the same under Section 52 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act,1958, (hereinafter referred to as "the 1958 Act" for short). Respondent no. 6 is the Zilla Parishad which can control/suspend actions/resolutions passed by Gram Panchayat in this respect. At one time it was the stand of authorities that Standardized building bye laws for B and C class municipal councils prescribed under Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats And Industrial Townships Act (40 of 1965) needed to be followed (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. All these matters are taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. In these letters patent appeals and writ petitions, learned Counsel for both parties made their submissions on the questions, which we have framed in this judgment. 3. Advocate Shri Khapre appearing for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.368/2011 made the following submissions : (i) The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was enacted to regulate and make better provisions for the administration of public religious and charitable Trusts in the State of Bombay. Various officers who are required to implement the provisions of the said B.P.T. Act, 1950, namely the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Deputy Charity Commissioner, Joint Charity Commissioner and Charity Commissioner are performing judicial functions or in respect of some provisions; the quasi-judicial functions. That is evident from the reading of several pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. On this writ petition, from time to time, orders have been made directing that it would be heard finally at Admission stage. Accordingly, we proceed to issue Rule and by consent of parties, all of whom are appearing through advocates and waive service, we dispose of this writ petition finally by this judgment. 2} By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24th February 2011 by which the Vice Chancellor of the 1st respondent-University has withdrawn and cancelled the approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a lecturer in Mass Communication in Central India Institute of Mass Communication administered by Institute of Educational Research and Development Affairs, Nagpur. It is also declared by this order that the petitioner shall cease to be a teacher within the meaning of section 2(34) of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994 (for short “M.U. Act”) from the date of this orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. On this writ petition, from time to time, orders have been made directing that it would be heard finally at Admission stage. Accordingly, we proceed to issue Rule and by consent of parties, all of whom are appearing through advocates and waive service, we dispose of this writ petition finally by this judgment. 2} By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24th February 2011 by which the Vice Chancellor of the 1st respondent-University has withdrawn and cancelled the approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a lecturer in Mass Communication in Central India Institute of Mass Communication administered by Institute of Educational Research and Development Affairs, Nagpur. It is also declared by this order that the petitioner shall cease to be a teacher within the meaning of section 2(34) of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994 (for short M.U. Act) from the date of this order. 3} The peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard. 2. RULE. 3. Taken up for final disposal by consent of the rival parties looking to the nature of the matter at hand. 4. The undisputed facts are that the applicant-wife is residing with her parents at Nagpur, after having returned from matrimonial house of the husband. It is also not in dispute that she has filed proceedings for maintenance and the proceedings under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, in the Courts at Nagpur against the respondent-husband. The respondent-husband has filed matrimonial proceedings seeking a decree of nullity of marriage in the Court at Thane. 5. The present transfer application has been filed by the applicant-wife with a prayer to transfer Hindu Marriage Petition No.109 of 2013 from the Court of 3rd Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane to the Family Court at Nagpur before which Petition No. C-22 of 2013 is pending. 6. Mr. B.N. Mohta, learned counsel for the respondent-husband has raised a preliminary objection to the terr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Common Judgment: (A.P. Bhangale, J.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. Facts in Writ Petition No.1907 of 1998 : 2. On or about 13.3.1981, the petitioner/Company was awarded a Contract bearing no. W.188.C.360 with the respondent/Railway to supply two lakh ten thousand units of Monoblock Prestressed Concrete Sleepers (hereinafter referred as 'MPCS units') to the Railways. The respondents had enhanced the above order by further two lakh MPCS units of 60 KG specifications. The petitioner/Company manufactured and supplied the MPCS units and have received payments from the respondents. On 24.9.1990, the respondent awarded the first repeat order for manufacture and supply of 7,50,000/- (seven Lakh fifty thousand) and 82,000 (eighty two thousand units) inclusive of adhoc orders sanctioned by Railway Board vide letters dated 10.5.1989 and 7.12.1989. Accordingly, the petitioners have manufactured and supplied MPCS units. 3. On 24.3.1995, further repeat ad hoc order of one ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
P.N. Deshmukh, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. All these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment as substantial question involved therein to a large extent is common. 3. In Writ Petition No.6889/2014, petitioner has challenged order dated 17/1/2014 passed by respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating his caste claim of belonging to `Mahar' (Scheduled Caste) and prayed for quashing of the same. In Writ Petition No.2591/2014, petitioner has challenged order dated 1/8/2013 passed by respondent no.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating her caste claim of belonging to `Mahar' (Scheduled Caste) and prayed for quashing of the same. In Writ Petition No.6586/2014, petitioner has challenged order dated 4/7/2013 passed by respondent no.1 invalidating her caste claim of belonging to `Korku' (Scheduled Tribe) and prayed for quashing of the same. 4. In nutshell, it is the case of petitioner Badalsingh s/o Bharosa ...
Tag this Judgment!