Mumbai Court February 2010 Judgments

Ritula Singh Vs. Lt. Col. Rajeshwar Singh

Court: Mumbai

ORDERRoshan Dalvi, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.2. The parties are wife and husband. They have been married since 22.10.1986. The wife has filed a Divorce Petition in the Family Court in 2008. She has applied for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for herself and her 2 daughters admittedly born on 13.10.1988 and 4.1.1991. Her Advocate argued that the daughters are 19 years and 17 years old respectively which is arithmetically incorrect. The daughters are 21 years and 19 years, respectively.3. The interim maintenance application would have to be considered for the Petitioner-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and for her children under Section 20(2) and (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The learned Judge has considered the application on behalf of three of them. The wife has been refused the interim maintenance. The children have been granted interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- each. They attend college and are depende...

Maternity Home, a Registered Public Trust Registered Under the Bombay ...

Court: Mumbai

R.P. Sondur Baldota, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the parties for final disposal of the application.2. The question that arises for consideration of the Court in this case is whether revision is maintainable against an order of the trial court postponing, decision on the issue of the maintainability of the suit and on the question of bar of limitation, to the trial of the suit.3. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant for deciding the above question, are that the respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 70 of 2006 against the applicant, which is a public trust registered with the Charity Commissioner, for specific performance of an agreement of sale and for a mandatory injunction directing the applicant to obtain necessary permission from the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur to sell the suit property to the respondent. Immediately on entering its appearance in the suit, the applicant, on 28th February, 2007 filed an application raisi...

Maroti S/O. Govinda Chavan (Died Through L.Rs., Harischandra S/O. Maro ...

Court: Mumbai

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This writ petition, which is filed by legal representatives of Gopinath Chavan, challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short 'M.R.T.'), in Case No. 150/B/89-Aurangabad and Case No. 3/B/88-Aurangabad, decided by a common judgment on 30.06.1989, whereby the Tribunal allowed the both revision petitions, set aside orders of the Tahsildar and Collector and held that both the Lower Courts committed error of law in directing original respondent Patilba to handover possession to heirs of Gopinath, who are original petitioners in this petition. He also set aside order regarding recovery of arrears of rent.2. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition may be stated as follows:One Radhakishan was the original owner of Survey No. 83 (Block No. 130) of village Turkabad Kharadi, Tal. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. He had agreed to sell said land to Gopinath Chavan of whom petitioners are legal representatives and accordingly an agreement of sale was ex...

Dr. Balaji S/O Ramrao Kawathekar and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...

Court: Mumbai

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties.The State of Maharashtravide Govt. Resolution dated 30th December, 1999, decided to extend the benefit of revised University Grant Commission pay scales, as adopted by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Education, to the academic staff working in all the Agricultural Universities and affiliated colleges in the State with retrospective effect from 1st January, 1996. The revised UGC pay scales are indicated in Annexure -I to the said Government Resolution. The revision of pay scale was in response to the communication dated 3rd March, 1999 from the Ministry of Agricultural, Department of Agriculture Research and Education, Government of India, New Delhi, wherein, the Government of India informed the State Government that, if the State Government adopts the revised UGC Pay Scales for agricultural universities in the State, the Central Government will provide 80% of the ...

Venkatesh Yadavrao Shinde Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Secreta ...

Court: Mumbai

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself.2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that the delimitation (Ward formation) of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation for the General Elections to be held in the year 2010 as published in the Notification dated 2nd February, 2010 be quashed and set aside. It is further prayed that the Respondent No. 2 be restrained from holding elections of Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad in respect of area covered by Gut Nos. 28 to 44 and 46 to 75 of Village Satara, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad unless and until the question of inclusion of that area in Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad or village Panchayat Satara is decided. It is further prayed that the Respondent No. 1 be directed to decide the issue of inclusion of area of Gut Nos. 28 to 44 and 46 to 75 of v...

Chandrashekhar Chintaman Vaidya Vs. National Organic Chemical Industri ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(3)MhLj434

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Admit. Learned Adv. Mr. R.B. Puranik waives service for respondent sole.Taken up for final hearing by consent.Facts2. The appellant/complainant had filed a complaint before Labour Court under Section 28 read Item 1 of Scheduled IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, against alleged illegal termination by order dated 14th April, 2003, which was in the nature of dismissal on account of misconduct.The appellant is hereinafter referred to as 'complainant.'3. In the complaint, he had set up a plea that he was a workman under provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, though his appointment was as a Supervisor.The employer denied the plea and raised a Preliminary Objection as to the status of the complainant to be a workman.4. The complainant examined himself and produced certain documents and sought production of documents from the employer. He has denied having done any managerial duties, and sta...

Dilipsinh S/O Ramsinh Bhatia Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1249,2010CriLJ2014

P.R. Borkar, J.1. These two writ petitions raise identical question of facts and law, namely, whether possession of Gutka for sale constitutes offence punishable under Section 273 of I.P.C.2. Heard Shri C.R. Deshpande, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned A.P.Ps. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi and Smt. B.R. Khekale for the RespondentState in the respective Writ Petitions.3. Rule. With consent of learned Counsel for parties, rule made returnable forthwith and both the petitions are taken up for final disposal.4. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 9.9.2003, Police Constable Balu Ahirrao, Assistant Sub Inspector Shri Savkar, Police Constables Sarvashree Pravin Devare and Ashok Suryawanshi of Police Station Nardana, got information that in a motor truck bearing No. AP.09/KB.9002 plying on BombayAgra Highway from Indore to Dhule, gutka of Goa1000 Company was being brought to Maharashtra from Indore. Therefore, after the said track came to Nardana, after crossing the border of Madh...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Development Credit Bank Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2010]323ITR206(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit2. The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arises out of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 15th January 2009, by which the Tribunal held that the jurisdiction under Section 263 had not been validly exercised by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Hence, the appeal by the Revenue raises the following substantial question of law :Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 was not justifiable, on the ground that the order of the Assessing Officer was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ?3. The assessee is a Bank. In the present case, an order of assessment under Section 143(3), in relation to assessment year 20022003, was passed on 24th December 2004. In so far as it is material to this proceeding, the Assessing Officer, while dealing with a provision for depreciation on current investments noted that in the computation of total income of the ass...

Universidad Politechnica De Valencia Centro De Transferencia De Techno ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: LC2010(1)356

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent of parties as pleadings are complete heard forthwith.2. The petitioner filed Patent Application dated October 16,2002 in the office of the Respondent No. 3 which was numbered I4/MUM. The said application claimed priority from Spanish Patent Application No. P200001102 dated April, 19, 2000. Thereafter in accordance with law a request for examination was filed in Form 18 dated March 15, 2005 along with the prescribed official fee which was taken on record by the respondent No. 3. The said application was consequently examined by Respondent No. 3 and the first examination report (hereinafter referred as FER) was issued on June 15, 2005.According to the petitioner as per the law prevailing at that time the normal date for placing the application in order for grant was December 15, 2006. The FER contained the objections raised by Respondent No. 3. A considered reply was filed on November 25, 2005. In the application it further set out that no advers...

Mrs. Smita Vaibhav Mulay Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Ministry of ...

Court: Mumbai

1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. In all these petitions, the respondent bank is Multi State Co-operate Bank. The petitioner in respective petitions have challenged the proposed coercive action of the respondent bank on the ground that the respondent bank, being a Multi State Co-operative bank is not a bank within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The Multi State Co-operative bank could be treated as a bank for the purpose of Act of 2002, if the Central Government were to issue notification specifying the Multi State Cooperative bank. However, the notification issued by the Central Government dated 28-01-2003 is only in respect of Co-operative bank as defined in Clause (cci) of Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, as bank for the purpose of Act of 2002. The definition of 'Co-operative Bank' provided in Section 56(cci) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, means a state coo...