Mumbai Court August 2008 Judgments

Arundhati Deepak Patil Vs. Deepak Bhaurao Patil

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR702; 2008(5)BomCR1; (2008)110BOMLR2541; 2008(6)MhLj554

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 22.6.2006 rendered by Family Court in Petition No. A-1567 of 2000 filed by the respondent-husband seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act'). By the impugned judgment, the marriage of the appellant-Arundahti (for short, 'the respondent') and the respondent-Deepak (for short, 'the petitioner') has been dissolved on both the grounds, that is, cruelty and desertion. The operative portion of the impugned judgment reads thus:The petition is allowed.The marriage solemnized between the parties on 26.12.1994 is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.The permanent custody of minor daughter Hardiki shall remain with the respondent-mother Arundhati Patil. Petitioner-father Deepak Patil shall have access to said Hardiki on 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month in the morning from 10.30 to...

Nazir Dastagir Pattekari Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Addi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR854; [2009(121)FLR11]; 2009(1)MhLj311

P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that appropriate direction may be issued to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 directing them to pay to the petitioner unpaid Salary payable to him as an Assistant Teacher for the period 12th June, 1995 to 9th December 1998.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was serving as an Assistant teacher in Respondent No. 3 School. Respondent No. 2 is an Educational institution which runs the secondary school i.e. Respondent No. 3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in June 1995. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not Release the monthly salary of the petitioner regularly as per the Rules and When he tried to make a demand about the same, his services were orally Terminated on 9th December 1998.3. Being aggrieved by the said oral termination, the petitioner Preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 201 of 1998 under Section 9...

Shri Sanjay Sathu Vs. the Chairman,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR852

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The petitioners in all these petitions have challenged the orders passed on 27-6-2005 / 28-6-2005 by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development ('MHADA' for short) whereby the flats allotted to the respective petitioners in the proposed Powai Planet Co-operative Housing Society ('Society' for short) has been cancelled. Since the reason for cancelling of the allotment is common, all these petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment.2. In all these cases, the petitioners had approached MHADA with a view to purchase a flat in the buildings constructed by MHADA at Powai. The petitioners were directed to approach the Chief Promoter of the Society who was authorised by MHADA to sell some of the flats in the building constructed by MHADA. Accordingly, the petitioners approached the Chief Promoter of the Society and paid token amount for purchase of the respective flat. Thereupon, MHADA issued provisional offer letter to each of the petitioners se...

Vijay S/O Vithalrao Joshi Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through the Sec ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR220

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the demand notices/communications of rent of various years dated 16.10.1990, 12.9.1992, 8.7.1992 & 18.1.1993. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22.2.1993 there is a stay to the said demand notices and also to the eviction. We have noted that there was no notice of any eviction and/or prayer for stay of such eviction.2. Admittedly, the petitioner was allotted plot no.1 admeasuring 96 sq. meter situated at Ghat Road, Nagpur which is in the business area of Nagpur city. The said allotment was for the purpose of workshop. An agreement was executed between the parties on 1.4.1986. The petitioner had admitted the terms and conditions of the said agreement. There was no separate agreement entered into thereafter till this date. Admittedly, that agreement was for one year.3. Respondents pursuant to the Board Circular dated 17.9.1985 claimed revised license fee. The petitioner has knowledge about the said demand dated ...

Dr. Nikhil D. Dattar, Gynaecologist, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3293

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. The learned advocates for the respondents waive service. 2. By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking declaration that Section 5 of The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, for short 'the said Act', to the extent it does not include the eventualities specified under Section 3(2)(b)(ii) of the said Act is ultra vires and that, therefore, the Section 5(1) of the said Act should be read down to include the said eventualities, and consequently should be read to include the following words 'and when there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped' and hence direction should be issued to the respondents to allow the petitioner No. 3 to terminate the pregnancy. 3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner No. 3 is currently in 26th week of pregnancy. During 24th week of pregnancy, the petitione...

Sardar Bhimsingh S/O Uttamsing Pujari Vs. Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj101

Santosh Bora, J.1. Heard Counsel for respective parties.2. Rule. By consent of learned Counsel for parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.3. By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside order of dismissal dt. 1-6-2007, passed by the Superintendent, Gurudwara Sachkhand Board, Nanded, whereby, petitioner has been dismissed from service of Takhat Sachkhand Sri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib, Nanded.Facts giving rise to this petition may be stated as under:4. Admittedly, petitioner - Sardar Bhimsingh Uttamsingh Pujari joined services of Takhat Sachkhand Sri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib, Nanded, in the year 1977, as a Clerk. On 12-8-2004, he was placed under suspension by respondent No. 2. The order of suspension was passed in the wake of contemplated disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct.It is not in dispute that, Junior Assistant Superintendent (Mr. Ranjeetsingh Daleepsingh Chiragiya) was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. En...

Mr. Ramdhari Devnarayan Mishra Vs. Mr.Javid ShrafuddIn and Another

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This appeal is preferred against the order/award dated 30/09/2008 Mr.Javid Shrafuddin and Ors. V/s. Mr. Ramdhari Devnarayan Mishra by Additional District Forum, Thane (Forum below in short). In the instant case respondent/original complainant filed consumer complaint since its developer/builder namely appellant/original opposite party failed to hand over him the possession of the flat no.1202 as per the agreement dated 05/11/2004 even after receipt of consideration. Appellant/original opposite party appeared and stated that there is dispute as to the FSI was pending before the Apex Court and therefore, possession could not be given. Upholding the contention of the respondent/complainant and rejecting the submission made on behalf of appellant/opposite party, Forum below partly allowed the complaint and issued directions to hand over the possession after providing the amenities as per the agreement. In addition to the...

Narayan Manik Patil and ors. Vs. Jaywant J. Patil and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR247

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. Bafna Charitable Trust, the Applicants, have taken out this Notice of Motion for deleting the lands bearing Survey Nos. 151-A and 77 of the village Nahur from the plaint and for discharge of the Court Receiver appointed inter-alia in respect of the said lands by an order dated 20.4.1995 passed by the Division Bench.2. At the out set, I must mention that I have decided not to express any opinion on the merits of the contentions of the parties including the Applicants in respect of the suit properties. The order I intend passing is based on the fact that the Applicants are vitally affected by the appointment of the Court Receiver. That the Applicants claim the ownership and to be in possession of the said properties is expressly admitted in the plaint. It has also been expressly admitted by the Defendants in other proceedings, which I will refer to shortly. Despite the same, the Applicants were not impleaded in the above suit. The Court Receiver was therefore appointe...

Vidarbha Flour Fills Owners' Association A Trade Union Registered unde ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR718; 2008(6)BomCR859

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner is the President of Vidarbha Flour Mills Owners Association, a registered trade union, registered under the provisions of Section 13 of Trade Unions Act, 1926. Petitioner No. 2 is running a flour mill in New Mangalwari area since last more than 12 years. Respondent No. 5 got the no objection for running the flour mill just 60 mtrs. away from the mill of petitioner no. 2. However, respondent no. 2 on 08.02.2006 cancelled the said no objection certificate by order dated 08.02.2006. On an appeal, respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 29.03.2006, whereby the provisional no objection certificate was granted to respondent no. 5 for flour mill in the same area and at the same place. The petitioners, therefore, preferred revision before the Additional Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur against the order dated 29.03.2006. After considering the rival contentions as raised, respondent No. 2 has remanded the matter back by observing as under:I therefore o...

Shri Chandrahas D. Chodankar Vs. the State of Goa (Through the Secreta ...

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...