Court : Mumbai
1. These appeals are directed against the order dated 20th July, 2013 passed by the City Civil Court dismissing the Charity Application filed by the appellant and allowing Charity Application filed by the respondent dismissing the appellant as trustee of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust. 2. The facts that are material and relevant for the present case are as under: On 15th January, 2007 the appellant was appointed as a trustee of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust w.e.f. 15th January, 2007 for the period of 5 years. The appellant was allegedly convicted of an offence of moral turpitude by a Court in Belgium. On 28th April, 2008, the respondent filed an Application No. 5 of 1008 under Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai seeking removal/dismissal/suspension of the appellant as a trustees on the ground that he was allegedly convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude by a Court in Belgium. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Mohit S. Shah, CJ. 1. At the request of the learned Counsel for both the sides the petition was taken up for final disposal. 2. The Petitioner, Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd., is a wholly owned subsidiary of a non-resident company, Vodafone Tele-Services (India) Holdings Limited (the holding company). The Petitioner required funds for its telecommunication services project in India from its holding company during the financial year 2008-09 i.e. Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. On 21 August 2008, the Petitioner issued 2,89,224 equity shares of the face value of Rs.10/- each on a premium of Rs.8,509/- per share to its holding company. This resulted in the Petitioner receiving a total consideration of Rs.246.38 crores from its holding company on issue of shares between August and November 2008. The fair market value of the issue of equity shares at Rs.8,519/- per share was determined by the Petitioner in accordance with the methodology prescribed by the Government of India under the Capit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: [A.S. Chandurkar, J.] 1. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are members of the staff serving in the Family Courts at Aurangabad and Nagpur seek extension of benefits as made available by Justice Shetty Commission to the staff of the Family Courts in the entire State. 2. The proceedings were initially filed in public interest. However, as the petitioners were seeking reliefs for their own benefits, by order dated 17.6.2014 the petitioners were permitted to convert the Public Interest Litigation into a regular Writ Petition. After the proceedings were duly converted, the Writ Petition has been heard finally with consent of the parties. Hence, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 3. The petitioners were initially appointed after following the due process of recruitment at the District Court in Aurangabad and Nagpur. Under the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, the said Act), Family Courts were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Naresh Patil, J. 1. In these two petitions, identical question is involved as to whether a migrant from the State of Maharashtra to Union Territory of Daman and Diu would be entitled to claim the same caste status as was available to him in the State of Maharashtra. The question raised being identical in both petitions, we are disposing of these petitions finally by this common judgment and order. 2. W.P.No.502/2002 has been filed by one Mr. V.N. Kotiya who was employed as Junior Engineer in the Electricity Department in the administration of Daman and Diu. W.P.No.3891/2003 has been filed by the Administrator, Union Territory of Daman and Diu. Briefly stated, the facts are summarized as under: 3. The petitioner-Kotiya contends that he was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Electricity Department of the administration of Daman and Diu. Prior thereto, he was working as In-charge Assistant Engineer under the order passed on 1st October 1997. The respondent No.4Milind R. Ingle was also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 03rd April, 2012 on the Notice of Motion No.1548/2011 in Suit No.1173/2011. In this Notice of Motion bearing No.1548/2011 for interim relief filed in the Respondent/ Plaintiff's Suit, the Appellants/ original Defendants invoked Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as applicable to the State of Maharashtra and raised the issue of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and try the Suit. 2. The main prayer in the Notice of Motion No.1548/2011 reads as under:- ( a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, the Defendants, their servants and agents be restrained by temporary order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from entering upon or remaining on the Suit Flat viz. Flat No.5, Second Floor, Goolestan, 37, (East) Wing, Cuffe Parade, Bombay 400005 or any part thereof without the permission of the Plaintiff; 3. In term...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
AnoopV. Mohta, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respective Respondents waive service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. All these Petitions revolve around the issues relating to and connected to validation of castes certificates belonging to œThakar?/ œThakur? or œKa Thakur?, œKa Thakar?, œMa Thakur?, œMa Thakar? Schedule Tribe (ST) (for short œthe Thakur tribes?) of the State of Maharashtra. By this common judgment, we are dealing with basically the issues of œthe Constitutional area restriction removal?, œaffinity test?, œrelations certificates? and its effect on assessing the evidence/documents and the merits of the matter while granting /rejecting/validating the caste certificate. 3. Each case has to be considered on its own merits, as the relevant oral, as well as, documentary evidence are required to be dealt with independently, while deciding the case on its merits. However,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1 These Writ Petitions raise the issue of constitutional validity of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Act 34 of 2008) (for short NIA Act). 2 Hence, RULE. The Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3 Since both Writ Petitions involve common questions, they are being decided by this common judgment. For properly appreciating the arguments of parties, the facts in Writ Petition No.4049/2012 are referred to. 4 It is stated that the Petitioner has been arraigned as an accused No.1 in C.R. No.I130/ 2008 lodged at Azad Nagar Police Station, Malegaon on 30.09.2008 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 326, 427, 153A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code r/w Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act, 1908 r/w Sections 3, 5, 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 r/w Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 along with ten other accused in the wake of a bomb blast that took...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard. 2. RULE. 3. Taken up for final disposal by consent of the rival parties looking to the nature of the matter at hand. 4. The undisputed facts are that the applicant-wife is residing with her parents at Nagpur, after having returned from matrimonial house of the husband. It is also not in dispute that she has filed proceedings for maintenance and the proceedings under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, in the Courts at Nagpur against the respondent-husband. The respondent-husband has filed matrimonial proceedings seeking a decree of nullity of marriage in the Court at Thane. 5. The present transfer application has been filed by the applicant-wife with a prayer to transfer Hindu Marriage Petition No.109 of 2013 from the Court of 3rd Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane to the Family Court at Nagpur before which Petition No. C-22 of 2013 is pending. 6. Mr. B.N. Mohta, learned counsel for the respondent-husband has raised a preliminary objection to the terr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. This appeal by the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.104 of 2012 before the IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan questions the order passed by him below Exhibit-5, rejecting his application to restrain defendant No.7 from creating third party interests in the suit property pending hearing of the suit. 2. It is the appellant's case that defendant Nos.1 to 6 owned the suit land and agreed to sell it to the plaintiff by two Agreements of Sale for Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.17,40,000/-, of which the agreement for Rs.30,00,000/- was registered on 28-1-2011 and the other agreement remained to be registered. The plaintiff paid to defendant Nos.1 to 6 Rs.13,36,600/- towards the transaction. Defendant Nos.1 to 6 however executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.7 on 29-3- 2012 and the plaintiff now apprehends that defendant No.7 may create third party interests pending the suit. He, therefore, sought temporary injunction by application Exhibit-5 in the suit filed by him....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Counsel for the Respondents in the respective petitions waive notice. Taken up for final disposal, by consent. 2. As common questions are involved, these petitions are disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. All these petitions were proceeded together as common questions have been raised in these matters. 4. Writ Petition No.2457 of 2012 is filed by the Union representing Licensed / Approved Aircraft Maintenance Engineers employed by Respondent No.1 throughout India and abroad. 5. Writ Petition No.391 of 2013 is filed by the Union representing Licensed / Approved Aircraft Maintainance technical staff employed by Respondent No.1 throughout India and abroad. 6. Writ Petition (Lodging) No.2896 of 2012 is filed by the Union claiming to be the largest representative organisation of the Aircraft Engineers employed by Respondent No.1. 7. Lastly, Writ Petition (Lodging) No.585 of 2013 has been filed by the employees of Un...
Tag this Judgment!