Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) By this Petition, the Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code") for quashing an offence registered under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1988"). The First Information Report was registered by the fifth Respondent-the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai. The first Informant is the sixth Respondent. The Petitioner accused was a Police Constable who was at the relevant time attached to Vikhroli Police Station, Mumbai. The allegation against him is of demand of illegal gratification from the sixth Respondent. On the basis of information supplied by the sixth Respondent, a trap was laid on 31st October 2012 when the Petitioner was caught raid-handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.18,000/- in cash. 2. The ch...
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
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. These appeals arise from a decision of a Learned Single Judge dated 5 March 2012 on an Originating Summons filed under Rule 238 of the Rules framed by this Court for the Original Side. 2. The Plaintiff, Charu K.Mehta, is a permanent trustee for life time of the First Defendant which is a public trust by the name of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust. By an Indenture of Trust dated 5 July 1978, the Settlor, Kirtilal Manilal Mehta, established a Trust inter alia to afford medical relief and for the spread of medical science, including by the establishment, maintenance and support of hospitals. Under the Deed of Trust, the Plaintiff and the Second and Third Defendants were named as permanent trustees for life. The Plaintiff is the wife of the Second Defendant. The Second Defendant is one of the sons of the Settlor. The Third Defendant is the daughter of the Settlor. 3. The Second Defendant filed an application on 6 July 1978 before the Charity Commissioner for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Order: This writ petition along with some civil applications appeared on board under caption "for orders". When the civil applications were argued and since they were argued extensively, a suggestion was given to parties as to why the petition cannot be taken up and disposed of. All parties having consented to this course, the petition is heard and disposed of. 2. On 18th September 2003, this Court admitted the petition and made interim orders of status quo. That has led to filing of applications by several persons who are not even parties to the petition but who are anxious to have a decision on this petition. 3. In such circumstances, even those who have moved the applications, have been heard by me. 4. The petition is directed against an order dated 22nd October 2003 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies by which an appeal has been allowed, which appeal was preferred by the respondent No.3 to this petition. The appellate authority has allowed the appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.M. Borde, J. 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 Petitioners, in both the petitions, are challenging the orders passed by Respondent No.2-Committee invalidating their caste claim on the ground that parents of petitioners are originally residents of District Bider, which forms part of Karnataka State and that they have migrated to the State of Maharashtra after 10.08.1950 i.e. after enforcement of Constitution Scheduled Castes Order, 1950. 3 It is not disputed that parents and forefathers of petitioners are original residents of District Bider, the geographical area, which was forming part of erstwhile State of Hyderabad, before States Re-Organization. The part of District Bider, after re-organization of States in 1956, has become part of State of Karnataka. It is also not disputed that petitioners originally belong to an area which is pre-dominantly a Marathi speaking area, which presently forms part of Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.M. Borde, J. 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 Petitioners, in both the petitions, are challenging the orders passed by Respondent No.2-Committee invalidating their caste claim on the ground that parents of petitioners are originally residents of District Bider, which forms part of Karnataka State and that they have migrated to the State of Maharashtra after 10.08.1950 i.e. after enforcement of Constitution Scheduled Castes Order, 1950. 3 It is not disputed that parents and forefathers of petitioners are original residents of District Bider, the geographical area, which was forming part of erstwhile State of Hyderabad, before States Re-Organization. The part of District Bider, after re-organization of States in 1956, has become part of State of Karnataka. It is also not disputed that petitioners originally belong to an area which is pre-dominantly a Marathi speaking area, which presently forms part of Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: The Petitioner (original Respondent) has challenged the impugned Order dated 23rd January 2012 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Pune on the complaint under Section 28 read with Item 9 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTYU and PULP Act). The operative of the Order is as under: “1) The Complaint (U.L.P) No.12/2007 is allowed. 2) It is hereby declared that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labour practice within the meaning of item 9 of Schedule IV of the MERTU and PULP Act and the Respondent is directed to cease and desist from unfair labour practice. 3) The Respondent is directed to implement the terms of an Award in Reference (I.T.) No. 24/2002 as well as settlement Dt. 30/9/2004 in respect of the employees involved in the complaint with further direction to the Respondent to extend them the benefits of said Award and settlement to which they are entitled under law. 4) No ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: The Petitioner (original Respondent) has challenged the impugned Order dated 23rd January 2012 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Pune on the complaint under Section 28 read with Item 9 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTYU and PULP Act). The operative of the Order is as under: 1) The Complaint (U.L.P) No.12/2007 is allowed. 2) It is hereby declared that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labour practice within the meaning of item 9 of Schedule IV of the MERTU and PULP Act and the Respondent is directed to cease and desist from unfair labour practice. 3) The Respondent is directed to implement the terms of an Award in Reference (I.T.) No. 24/2002 as well as settlement Dt. 30/9/2004 in respect of the employees involved in the complaint with further direction to the Respondent to extend them the benefits of said Award and settlement to which they are entitled under law. 4) No order as t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment : [ R.M. Borde, J.] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Bhavsar Kshetriya caste which is included in Other Backward Class category. The petitioner is serving as Conductor in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The school record of the petitioner records caste as 'Hindu Maratha'. According to the petitioner, while securing admission in school, his father has erroneously recorded the entry as 'Hindu Maratha'. He further contends that old record pertaining to his father, uncle and other near relatives show that they belong to 'Bhavsar Kehstriya caste'. The petitioner has also been issued caste certificate by the competent authority. The son of the petitioner has also been issued caste certificate by the competent authority certifying that he belongs to 'Bhavsar Kshetriya caste' and his caste claim has been validated by the compe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment : [ R.M. Borde, J.] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Bhavsar Kshetriya caste which is included in Other Backward Class category. The petitioner is serving as Conductor in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The school record of the petitioner records caste as 'Hindu Maratha'. According to the petitioner, while securing admission in school, his father has erroneously recorded the entry as 'Hindu Maratha'. He further contends that old record pertaining to his father, uncle and other near relatives show that they belong to 'Bhavsar Kehstriya caste'. The petitioner has also been issued caste certificate by the competent authority. The son of the petitioner has also been issued caste certificate by the competent authority certifying that he belongs to 'Bhavsar Kshetriya caste' and his caste claim has been validated by the compe...
Tag this Judgment!