Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(2)ALLMR96; 2005(3)ESC1827; 2005(1)MhLj1150
B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution has assailed the judgment and order dated 9-4-2002 passed in Appeal No. 249 of 1997 by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal at Aurangabad whereby the respondent No. 1 Assistant Teacher has been directed to be reinstated in service with full backwages and other consequential benefits by quashing and setting-aside the order of termination dated 3-12-1997.2. The petitioner No. 1 is the Head Master of Amar High School, Baijipura, Aurangabad and the said school is being run by Madan Education Society (petitioner No. 2). The said school has classes from 5th to 10th standards and is an aided private school. One Assistant Teacher by name Shri Rarhdas Limba Pawar had submitted his resignation and subsequently submitted an objection petition dated 7-11-1995 to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, stating that he was forced to resign. He belonged to the open category and his post fell vacant. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(2)ALLMR285; (2005)107BOMLR641
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.1.1992 delivered by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur in Ceiling Appeal Nos. 87/1990 to 91/1990. These ceiling appeals were filed by the present petitioners separately and in it the order impugned was one passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajura dated 8.10.1990. By this order dated 8.10.1990 learned Sub-Divisional Officer declared the transfer of disputed land purchased by the petitioners from surplus holder as invalid and also cancelled the mutations which were effected due to these transfers. Necessary facts in this respect briefly stated are:The present respondent No. 2 Bhalchandrarao owned vast land at various places including the village of petitioners by name Charli. Petitioner No. 1 purchased the land admeasuring 1.80 hectare out of Survey Nos. 228/1 and 228/2 situated at Charli in Gat No. 400 from respondent No. 2 by registered sale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(1)ALLMR588; (2005)107BOMLR193
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges order dated 15.10.1991 passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur (for short 'M.R.T.') in appeal under Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 thereby confirming the order dated 28th August, 1991 passed by Tahsildar, Chandrapur ordering restoration of the land in favour of the respondent No. 2 Smt. Manjulabai who is widow of original tribal owner Ragho, The facts in brief are as under:2. The present petitioner on 17.9.1987 has purchased fields Khasra Nos. 64 and 65 (now Gat No. 9 area 2.35 acres of village Lohara, Tan. and Distt.- Chandrapur) from one Deorao Pandurang Makode, who is respondent No. 3 in the present petition, and he purchased these fields on 18.12.1973 from deceased Ragho for Rs. 1,900/- and sold it for Rs. 7,000/ - to the present petitioner.3. It appears that suo motu proceedings was started for restoration of the land in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(1)ALLMR530; (2005)107BOMLR99
A.H. Joshi, J.1. This is revision application under Section 115 of the C.P.C. filed by original defendant. The admitted facts can be narrated briefly as follows.2. The non-applicant/ori. plaintiff is a member of applicant/defendant, which is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The non-applicant admits to have borrowed from the applicant in 1994 and had received the disbursement of a sum of Rs. 20.000/- and commenced with the repayment by monthly installment of Rs. 500A by deduction from salary. According to the non-applicant/ plaintiff, that apart from the monthly deduction, in total approximately a sum of Rs. 43.000/- which is more than double the loan amount, however, the society was still showing the outstanding debt of Rs. 11.320/-.3. As regards cause of action, the plaint discloses the statement contained in Para 14 as follows:14.- The plaintiff, therefore, issued notice through his Counsel to the defendant on 30.7.1999 for with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(4)BomCR442
Naik A.B., J.1. Heard Shri Raghuwanshi, Advocate instructed by Shri Bachate, Advocate for petitioner and Shri E.P. Sawant, Government Pleader for respondents 1, 2 and 3. Respondent No. 4 is the State Election Commission.Shri Kendre, Residence Deputy Collector, Beed is present in this Court. His presence is recorded. He has produced record of the proceedings before this Court.2. Rule. Shri Sawant, learned Government Pleader waives service of notice to respondents 1 to 3. As notice to respondent No. 4 is concerned, he is not necessary party, as in this petition the main challenge is to the order passed by the Collector under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. By consent of the parties, we take rule for final hearing forthwith.4. By this petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by Collector, Beed on 20th July, 2004 disqualifying him from the post of Councillor of Municipa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR451; 2005(2)MhLj390
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges Order dated 9-9-1992 passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Ceiling Appeal No. 59 of 1992 thereby upholding Order dated 13-7-1992 passed by Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Parsheoni (S. L. D. T.).2. It appears that in proceedings Under amended Ceiling Act 67.5 Acres of land of the petitioner was declared as surplus and the matter came before this Court in Writ Petition No. 560 of 1989. On 27-1-1992 the said petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioner/land holder to make choice. It appears that thereafter the petitioner appeared on 27-2-1992 before the S. L. D. T. and as records were not received the matter was taken up on 1-4-1992 on which date the petitioner submitted Form No. VII and VIII giving his choice. On 6-4-1992 the petitioner submitted an application therein pointing out that in view of consolidation proceedings his holding is reduced by 8.89 ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(2)ALLMR271; (2005)107BOMLR685
A.P. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioners claim to be the owners of land bearing Survey No. 431/ B, admeasuring 2 acres, situated at Mehrun, within the municipal limits of Municipal Council, Jalgaon. The petitioner Nos. 5 to 7 claim to be the owners of adjoining land, bearing Survey No.431 /A-1, 2 and 3, admeasuring 2 acres. In the year 1974, the respondent No. 1, Jalgaon Municipal Council, had declared its intention to prepare a Town Planning Scheme No. 3 for development of an area, covering both the survey numbers, owned by the petitioners. Under the said scheme, the land bearing Survey No. 431 /B was allotted Plot No. 288 and earmarked as Reservation No. 107, for public purpose, namely 'Garden'. Plot No. 431/A-1, 2 and 3, was also reserved in the said Town Planning Scheme No. 3 for the purpose of Library, Maternity Home and Dispensary and was allotted plot No. 287 and earmarked as reservation Nos. 104 and 105. The lands in question were agricultural lands, at the relevant time.2. The Mun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007ACJ362; 2005(4)ALLMR253; 2005(6)BomCR305; 2005(4)MhLj133
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This revision application under Rule 4(v) of Chapter V of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 challenges the order of Taxing Officer of High Court Bench at Nagpur dated 22-8-2003 in First Appeal Stamp No. 14634/2003 holding that the appellant has to pay court fee on memo of appeal filed by her under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The Taxing Officer has relied upon judgment of this court between Betle Stores v. State of Maharashtra reported at 1997 M.L.J. 823 and has found that the court fee is payable either under Article 3 of Bombay Court Fees Act treating the decision of Railway Claims Tribunal to be an award or under Article 1 of Bombay Court Fees Act, which prescribes ad-valorem court fees depending upon the valuation of the suit. He has recorded that in either case there is no difference in amount of court fee required to be paid on such memo of appeal.2. The appellant is First Appeal Stamp No. 14634/2003 and applicant in this Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2006)BC217
1. The defendants filed appeal as against the final order passed in OA by the DRT-II, Chennai. OA was decreed together with interest for the pendente lite and post-order period. Appellants valued the appeal only for the amount decreed and not for the pendents lite interest and the office raised objection that the appellants should calculate the interest and add the same together with decreed amount and pay Court fee. The appellants are not satisfied with the return and the appeal is posted before the Tribunal for orders.2. The learned Advocate for the appellants contended that at the lime of filing the appeal, the interest awarded for pendente lite need not be included for the purpose of valuation of the appeal. It is further submitted that no where in the Act or in the rules, it is stated that the interest payable subsequent to the date of filing of application should be included in the subject matter of the appeal. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision rendered b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(3)ALLMR22; 2007(2)ARBLR523(Bom); 2007(2)BomCR835
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. A preliminary objection is sought to be raised on behalf of the respondent about deficit court fee being paid on the appeal by the appellant. It is the contention of the respondent that the appellant is liable to pay court fee in terms of Article 1 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', and not in terms of Article 13(c) of Schedule II thereof. In the alternative, it is sought to be contended that the appellant is liable to pay court fee at least in terms of Article 3 of Schedule I of the said Act. The appellant having paid the court fee in terms of Article 13 of Schedule II of the said Act, the appeal is liable to be rejected in limine. On the other hand, the appellant insists that the provisions of law as regards the payment of court fees, which are attracted in the matter, are essentially those comprised under Article 13 of Schedule II of the said Act and none other.2. The learned advocate for the ...
Tag this Judgment!