Mumbai Court August 2008 Judgments

Rajesh S/O Pratap Sainani Vs. Mrs. Bhavna W/O Rajesh Sainani

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR131; 2008(6)MhLj853

V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Perused the petition. Heard finally by consent of parties.This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order passed by the 7th Family Court, Mumbai in Petition No. A-1301 of 2006 refusing to permit the Petitioner to withdraw his consent, which was given at the time of presenting petition for divorce by mutual consent, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short).The Factual Matrix:2. The petitioner-husband had filed petition under Section 9 of the Act, for decree of restitution of conjugal rights. During pendency of this petition, the respondent-wife made complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) with the Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai, against the petitioner. It was under investigation.The troubled marriage had also given rise to reciprocating demand for return of ornaments given in the marriage.Both parties, having realized that marriage is irretrievably bro...

Rajkumar Rampal Pandey Vs. Sarita Rajkumar Pandey

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR831

Daga V.C., J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. Perused the petition.2. This petition, filed by petitioner-husband under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 29.7.2008 passed below Exh. 10 in Petition No. A-113 of 2007 by the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai whereby the petitioner, his mother, sister, other relatives, servants and agents are restrained from obstructing the respondent-wife to reside in a shared household.FACTUAL MATRIX:3. The petitioner and respondent got married on 18.5.2001. The petitioner is working as marketing executive. Sometime in the month of February, 2004, the respondent-wife joined the petitioner and started residing with him in the shared household. The continuous acrimony between them resulted in matrimonial discord, leading to divorce petition by the husband on the ground of mental cruelty being Petition No. A-113/2007 and criminal complaint under Sections 498-A, 3...

Principal, Krishi Vidyalaya Vs. Dwarkabai Haribhau Hingane

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR608]; (2009)ILLJ488Bom; 2008(6)MhLj576

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The question involved in this petition is whether an educational institution, such as the petitioner, is covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act. The respondent who was employed with the petitioner had claimed gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act'). The application was allowed by the Controlling Authority under the Act. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was rejected and the order of the Controlling Authority was confirmed.2. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner being a college of agriculture, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not applicable. It is submitted that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has no application to an educational institution in view of the provisions of Section 1 Sub-section (3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of this Section are applicable to only those establishments which are covered by the Sectio...

Smt. Mira Ananta Naik and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ( ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Bom)149; [2009]183TAXMAN40(Bom)

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a declaration that the notices dt. 13th Dec, 1999 issued by the respondents are illegal, null and void and they seek a further relief by exercise of appropriate writs of quashing and setting aside the same.2. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioners are assessees and their income is assessed to income-tax. These are cases of petitioners being individual assessees. Their individual returns for the asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1997-98 were scrutinized. We are not concerned in this case with the assessment of income when the petitioners carry on business as partners of a partnership firm. This is a case of their individual returns of income being involved.It is further undisputed before us that from 16th Oct., 1996 to 20th Oct., 1996, a search was conducted at the residence of late Anant N. Naik and his family in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 132 of the ...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. S.Y. Ubale and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ279Bom

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petition challenges the order passed by the Labour Court on January 22, 1993. By that order, the Labour Court had allowed the reference and granted the respondent No. 2 reinstatement in service with continuity. As regards back wages, the Labour Court had directed the petitioners to pay the workman back wages from June 20, 1985 to December 31, 1987 and thereafter from January 1, 1990 till the date of the award.2. The respondent No. 1 workman was employed as a Conductor with the petitioner. On December 26, 1984 when his bus was checked, it was found that he had excess cash with him. Two passengers had alighted from the bus without tickets. A charge-sheet was issued to him and an enquiry was held. A notice was also issued to him requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. As the respondent workman's reply was not found to be satisfactory, he was dismissed from service on June 18, 1985. An industrial dispute was raised by the resp...

Tanaji Dinkar Wadakar Vs. Veer Chaphekar Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha L ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR850

Oka A.S., J.1. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties were fully heard on the last date. It will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief. The petitioner is the original complainant who filed a complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The 1st to 11th respondents are the accused in the said complaint.2. An application was made on behalf of the accused under Section 143 of the said Act praying that the trial may be conducted as a warrant case. The said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. The accused preferred a Revision Application before the Sessions Court. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 22nd March, 2006, the learned Sessions Judge has interfered and by allowing Revision Application it was directed that the learned Magistrate will conduct the Criminal case as a warrant triable case. This is the Order impugned in this petition und...

Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd Vs. Devkumar Vaidya

Court: Company Law Board CLB Mumbai

1. The petitioner the Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. is a company incorporated on 10-12-1919 under Indian Companies Act, 1913 having its registered office at 70, Gokhale South, Dadar, Mumbai-400 025. The company is doing the business of producing, manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical products. 1.1 Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are members of the Vaidya family and together with respondent Nos. 5 to 8 which are companies controlled by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 hold 23.33 per cent shares of petitioner-company as on 31-3-2008. The petitioner alleges that respondent No. 9 has illegally acquired 1,90,441 shares of the petitioner-company from respondent Nos. 1 to 8 in violation of the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (‘Takeover Regulations’/‘Takeover Code’) as also the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations 1992 (‘I...

Shri Francisco D. Luis Vs. the Director, Board of Secondary and Higher ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR569; (2008)110BOMLR2892

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. I have the advantage of perusing the judgment written by my esteemed colleague Justice A.P. Deshpande. With respect, I am unable to concur with the view expressed in the judgment and, therefore, would proceed to record my judgment expressing entirely a contra view.2. It may not be necessary to refer to the factual matrix of the case in any greater detail as it has been noticed in the judgment authored by Deshpande, J., but certain facts which are of some importance and have a direct bearing on the issues involved in the present Writ Petition needs to be referred even at the cost of repetition.3. Undisputed facts which emerge from the record before the Court are that on 12th June 2008 a meeting was called by the Minister for School Education and Sports to discuss the subject in regard to normalization of SCC, CBSE and ICSE examinations in which it was decided to inform all the Boards within the State of this proposal obviously with the purpose of inviting their v...

Ambika Prasad S/O Sher Bahadur Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR691; (2009)ILLJ279Bom; 2009(1)MhLj363

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has approached this Court after knocking the court of justice at different forums challenging the punishment and dismissal imposed upon him in a disciplinary enquiry conducted by the respondent employer. The petitioner came to be appointed as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) under Badge No. 587 in the Central Railway and was posted in Bombay on 29.09.1984. In April, 1991 while the petitioner was working in the RPF at Byculla, he received an intimation from his native place in Uttar Pradesh that his wife was seriously ill and, therefore, the petitioner applied for leave and got sanction from 07.04.91 to 12.04.91 and went to his native place to attend to his wife.3. It is the case of the petitioner that his wife was seriously ill and required continuous treatment and medication and no one else was there to look after her, his two children being small and widowed mother being old, the petitioner had to oversta...

Kondabai Bhaskar Sour and ors. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Amravati D ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR39; 2008(6)MhLj407

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of learned Counsel for the rival parties.By the present petition, the petitioners have put to challenge the order made by the Additional Collector, Buldana, on 18-3-2008 and confirmed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, on 21-5-2008, whereby election for the post of Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ghatnandra was set aside.2. Mr. Mahalle, learned Counsel for the petitioners, argued that Gram Panchayat Ghatnandra had in all nine posts of members in accordance with the notification. He further argued that the election was held for seven post out of nine posts because the posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe (woman) and Scheduled Tribe could not be filled as there is no population of Scheduled Tribes in the village and therefore the reservation for two posts of members in that category of Scheduled Tribes was itself basically wrong. According to him, it was impossible to have nine members in the Gram Panchayat in the abs...