Mumbai Court March 2009 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Virendrakumar S/O Gulabchand Runwal Vs. Preeta W/O Virendrakumar Runwa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR798; 2009(111)BomLR1586
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the husband against whom Hindu Marriage Petition (H.M.P.) No. 79 of 2001 was filed by respondent wife Preeta for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant husband filed Regular Civil Suit (R.C.S.) No. 57 of 2004 for declaration that marriage between parties is null and void and for perpetual injunction restraining present respondent Preeta Virendrakumar Runwal from claiming to be wife of the present appellant. Originally the proceedings for annulment of marriage were filed at the Family Court, Bijapur. By the order of the Supreme Court said proceeding registered as suit was transferred from the Family Court, Bijapur to the court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Parbhani and the proceedings was renumbered as R.C.S. No. 57 of 2004 filed by husband-appellant. Both H.M.P. No. 79 of 2001 filed by wife for restitution of conjugal rights and R.C.S. No. 57 of 2004 for declaration that marriage is null and void and injunction were heard togeth...
Vinayak Hari Kulkarni, Vs. State of Maharashtra, (Summons to Be Served ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MhLj242
S.B. Mhase, J.1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6597 of 2007 has filed the Writ Petition in respect of various proceedings initiated under the Bombay Inferior Village Watan Abolition Act. Most of the annexures, including the impugned order in the said matters, are in Marathi. The petitioner prepared the Writ Petition and went for the purpose of filing the Writ Petition. However, the petitioner was told by the Registry that unless all annexures or, in any case, the impugned order was translated from Marathi to English, the Petition would not be entertained.2. According to the petitioner, the non acceptance of the Petition because the annexures are not translated into English was an act contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India. The Registry brought to the notice of the petitioner the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 6408 of 2006 delivered by the High Court (Rebello & Sawant, JJ.) wherein it has been declared that the proviso to Rule 2(i) of Chapter XVII ...
Richardson Hindustan Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Bom)295; [2009]315ITR283(Bom)
R.S. Mohite, J.1. The questions of law referred to this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are as under:At the instance of the assessee:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee-company for weighted deduction under Section 35C on:(a) various expenses incurred on provision of distillation services;(b) expenses on transportation services provided to farmers;(c) depreciation on assets used for agricultural research centre?At the instance of the Revenue:(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the assessee's claim of weighted deduction under Section 35C on fertilizer subsidy to farmers as cash subsidy amounting to Rs. 2,78,384?2. In our view, question No. 1(a) is covered by a judgment passed in Income-tax Reference No. 315 of 1998 wherein in respect of the same assessee and on a similar factual background, we...
In Re: Various Companies (In Liqn.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR393
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Preliminary objection is taken by the Counsel representing the employees (in all 57) working in the Office of the Official Liquidator as Company Paid Staff. According to Mr. Kumbhakoni, the direction prayed in the report of the Official Liquidator dated 7th January 2009 cannot be considered, much less, granted, as it would be in excess of the scope for exercising review jurisdiction.3. The argument though attractive at the first blush, overlooks the basic distinction that the present proceedings are essentially governed by the provisions of the Companies Act r/w Company Court Rules. The inhibition regulating review jurisdiction specified in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure will have no bearing on the present proceedings. Significantly, the order of which clarification is sought by the Official Liquidator was passed in Chambers on the report presented before the Company Judge. The concerned employees were not heard at all.4. ...
Neelam Narayan Bansode Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Principle ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR108; 2009(111)BomLR1761; 2009(4)MhLj150
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, rule called out and heard.2. The petitioner claims to be a member registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Nurses Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and has averred that the State is responsible for implementing and enforcing the provisions of Maharashtra Nurses Act, 1966 in all concerned establishments. Section 3 of the said Act provides that the State of Maharashtra by notification in the Official Gazette is supposed to establish Maharashtra Nursing Council which is to be constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As per the prescribed constitution, the Council is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, with right to perform different functions in terms of the Act. The Council is to consist of exofficio members, elected members and nominated members. The State Government is to nominate four members to the Council, out of whom one shall be a Public Healt...
Quadricon Pvt. Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act, 19 ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR345; 2009(4)BomLR1432
S.B. Mhase, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th December, 2007, passed in Notice of Motion No. 467 of 2007 in Suit No. 3537 of 2004. Suit No. 3537 of 2004 has been filed by the plaintiffappellant. The respondent-defendant took out Notice of Motion No. 6456 of 2005, raising a preliminary issue of jurisdiction under Section 9(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure and for a declaration that this Court does not have jurisdiction to try the suit and consequently for an order that the plaint be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC').2. By order dated 26th April, 2006, Notice of Motion No. 745 of 2005 was dismissed by a learned single Judge. The defendant filed Appeal No. 896 of 2006 against the said order. The said appeal was disposed of by an order dated 13th December, 2006 by the Division Bench. While dismissing the appeal the Division Bench held that it was open to the defendant to make an application for reje...
P.B. Samant, Vs. Union of India (Uoi),
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR133; 2009(111)BomLR1745
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioners who claim that they are social workers and except Petitioner No. 3, all other Petitioners have been Members of Legislative Assembly of Maharashtra in the past. It is averred that Respondent No. 3 is a body set up by Respondent No. 1 - Union of India which had published a booklet/brochure in the name of 'JAWAHARLAL NEHRU NATIONAL RENEWAL MISSION'. Being interested in the welfare of the people of Maharashtra, the Petitioners have filed this Petition. According to the Petitioners, the action of the Respondents in adopting resolution of repealing the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act, 1976 (herein after referred to as the 'said Act') is in violation of the constitutional rights vested in the people of Maharashtra, more particularly as enumerated in Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 3 and 39 of the Constitution of India and Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are failing to perform their public duties. The State Government, in the Assembly agreed to repeal the sai...
Sau. Sushama W/O Pramod Taksande Vs. Shri Pramod S/O Ramaji Taksande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Bom111; 2009(3)BomCR753; 2009(111)BomLR1804; 2009(4)MhLj81
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The appellant before this Court is wife and she challenges judgment dated 6.12.2008 delivered by the District Judge -I, Pandharkawada, affirming the judgment dated 6.10.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharkawada (Kelapur). The Civil Judge, has in H.M.P. No. 24/2008 presented under Section 13[B] of Hindu Marriage Petition, dissolved marriage between the parties because of consent and the custody of two sons with father Pramod was continued as wife agreed not to seek the custody. It is also recorded that wife waived her right of maintenance. This order was challenged by wife in Regular Civil Appeal No. 68/2008 inter-alia contending that her signature on said petition and accompanying affidavits were obtained under false pretext and she was compelled to place her signature upon it. She contended that both the parties were residing together and there was no separation for a period of one year which is a mandatory requirement. The Lower Appellate...
Mrs. Savitri Sippy Through Her Constituted Attorney Miss. Veena Sippy ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR104; 2009(111)BomLR1733; 2009(4)MhLj376
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The present Appeal is directed against the order dated 25th September 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Petition (Lodging) No. 82 of 2008 vide which the Court declined to take any action against the Respondents in that Petition under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and discharged the notice issued to the non-Applicants.2. It is not necessary for us to notice the facts in detail, suffice it to notice that the Court dealing with Writ Petition No. 1562 of 2008 had passed the order dated 25th June 2008, which order reads as under:1. Mr. Desai states that the petition will be numbered within a period of 10 days from today.2. Upon this undertaking and statement the petition is taken up for admission. Heard Mr. Desai appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Satalekar, A. G. P appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 and the power of attorney holder of respondent is also present and heard. Learned A. G. P and the power of attorney ho...
Prakash Dattaram Talwadkar Vs. State of Maharashtra at the Instance of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1767
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Appellant together with five other persons was charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code and, in the alternative, of an offence punishable with Sections 302 read with Section 34. The Additional Sessions Judge by a judgment dated 13th September, 2002 convicted the Appellant of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. The five other accused were acquitted.2. Arjun Balu Dhurat retired from the service of the Police Department. He had three sons. Of them Rajaram was working as an electrician. On 21st July, 1989 Rajaram is alleged to have left home in connection with his work. On his return home at about 5.30 p.m., he left for a visit to his sister who resided in her m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »