Mumbai Court September 2006 Judgments

Vaijayanti W/O Amar Vazalwar Vs. Chandrakant S/O Odhavji Thakkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR593; 2007(1)MhLj699

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally.2. In this Revision Application, petitioner has challenged Order passed below Exh.17 dated 16th August, 2005.3. Petitioner herein - Original plaintiff had moved under Order 12, Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code, claiming that on the basis of admissions contained in the Written Statement and application for amendment of Written Statement, it was a case where the suit could be decreed based on those admissions, and prayed for passing of a decree.4. This application has been opposed, and ultimately rejected.5. As can be read from the application (Exh.17), according to plaintiff, the fact of execution of agreement dated 16th March, 1996 is admitted by the defendant, and that the said admission is sufficient for decreeing the suit.6. On perusal of the pleadings, it is seen that the dispute is in relation to performance of obligation under the said agreement. Plaintiff is treating that defendant has committed breach of terms of the ...

President Vs. Sunita Bansidhar Patole

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR829

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard.2. The petitioners challenge judgment and order dated 7th of July, 1995 passed by the School Tribunal, Nasik in Appeal No. 5 of 1993. By the impugned judgment the School Tribunal has allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent and has directed the petitioner- Management to reinstate the respondent to her original post alongwith backwages and all the monetary benefits attached to the post.3. The respondent was initially appointed in December, 1987 on leave vacancy for a period of five months. Thereafter under letter of appointment dated 1st of July, 1988 she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on the pay scale of Rs. 290-1-390-15-465. Fresh appointment order was issued on 28th May, 1990 as well as 31st May, 1991. The respondent's services came to be terminated with effect from 1.5.1992 and therefore the respondent filed the said appeal which was allowed by the impugned order.4. While challenging the impugned order, it was sought to be contended on behalf...

N.N. Valechha Vs. I.G. Petrochemicals Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]143CompCas122(Bom)

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is a petition for the winding up of the respondent-company under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, ('the Act', for short) on the ground that the respondent has been unable to pay its debt to the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 1,72,406 and under Section 433(f) of the Act on the ground that the respondent has become commercially insolvent.2. The respondent is a company having its factory at Taloja in Raigad district of Maharashtra and its registered Office at Panaji, Goa. The petitioner carries on business of maintenance engineers and repairers of cooling towers. The respondent was desirous of carrying out certain modifications to their existing Paharpur cooling tower and therefore invited quotations and after negotiations the petitioner was asked to carry out the said modifications pursuant to letter of indent dated January 23, 1999. The petitioner was paid an advance of Rs. 25,480. As per the petitioner, the petitioner submitted three bills for the supplie...

Rajesh Coach Builders Vs. Shah Nagindas Machchram and Sons

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR528; 2007(3)BomCR758

Bhosale D.B., J.1. By means of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 15.3.1994 rendered by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur adjudicating upon the preliminary issue, holding that the Court at Kolhapur has jurisdiction to try and decide the suit.2. The petitioner is the original defendant No. 1 whereas respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants' and 'the plaintiffs' respectively. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs. 22,22,931/-with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its realisation. The defendants are engaged in body building of vehicles. For the purpose of the said business they were in need of cut size steel sheets and mild steel sheets (for short 'the goods'). They placed the order for supply of the goods with the plaintiff. The defendants have their es...

Bhavita Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The Assistant Commissioner (Import) had sanctioned an amount of Rs. 58,172/- as refund of excess anti dumping duty paid by the asssesse holding that there has not been any unjust enrichment as the imported goods in question were consumed captively in the manufacturing of the final product and the prices of final product before and after such imports remained unchanged. In pursuance of the said order the amount was refunded to the appellants. Thereafter there was Review Order No. RC/AC-01-79/2004 dated 20.1.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs directing the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to file an appeal with the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai.Accordingly on filing of such appeal, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai has set aside the order in original and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence this appeal by the importers/appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) while relying upon the decision in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog...

Silverline Technologies Ltd. Vs. Development Bank of Singapore and

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: I(2007)BC192

1. A short question which arises in this appeal is whether the Recovery Officer can issue a sale certificate in respect of the immovable property which was in the possession of D.R.T. receiver and sold by a private treaty as sanctioned by the Recovery Officer. The sale certificate issued earlier was withdrawn by an order dated 17th, July, 2006 passed by the Recovery Officer of D.R.T.-II, Mumbai against which the appeal filed before the D.R.T was also dismissed on 7th August, 2006 which order is impugned in the present appeal.3. While dismissing the appeal, the D.R.T.-II has observed that if the sale is by private treaty, the sale certificate cannot be issued by the Tribunal. It is further observed that the sale certificate is issued by the Tribunal in a case in which the Recovery Officer himself undertakes to sell and not in a sale by private treaty in which the Recovery Officer has no role to play and therefore he dismissed the appeal from the facts which have been placed on record a...

Govind Laxmanrao Edke Vs. the State of Maharashtra through Department ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR490; 2006(6)BomCR605

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order of compulsory retirement dated 3.11.2004 passed under on the recommendations of the High Court on its administrative side.2. The Petitioner had entered the judicial service in terms of his first appointment as a Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class in June, 1980 and was promoted as a Civil Judge, Senior Division in the year 1989. He was further promoted as an Additional District & Sessions Judge in June, 1994. After having worked for about nine years in the Mofussil Judiciary as an Additional District and Sessions Judge the Petitioner was posted as a Judge in the City Civil & Sessions Court at Mumbai, and while he was holding the said post, was compulsorily retired by the impugned order passed by the State Government.3. As per the Petitioner, his disposal record on becoming the Additional District Judge was satisfactory in the year 1994, inadequate in the year 1995 & 1996 and ...

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its Regional Of ...

Court: Mumbai

A.P. Lavande, J.1. All these appeals are being disposed of by common judgment since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these appeals.2. State of Maharashtra acquired lands belonging to several persons, including those of the respondents in the present appeals for the benefit of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as .The Corporation.) under the provisions of Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the Collector, the land owners filed the application under Section 34 of the Act claiming higher compensation. In all the references the State of Maharashtra was was made party. The Corporation was not joined as party in the references. The Court, after considering the evidence led by the claimants and State of Maharashtra enhanced the compensation. Aggrieved by the judgments and orders passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur in several Land Acqu...

Vitthal Pundalik Chopade and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR522; 2006(6)BomCR622

Kanade V.M., J.1. Both these Writ Petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment since the basic issue involved in both these petitions is identical.2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present Writ Petitions are as under:3. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5320 of 2006 is seeking a direction that the post of Chairman of the Primary Education Board - respondent No. 3, should not be occupied by respondent No. 4 in the present petition and that the petitioner be declared as Chairman of the respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4 in the said Writ Petition is a petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5340 of 2006 and he has challenged the Order passed by the Government which has held that respondent No. 4 in the first petition and the petitioner in the second petition is not entitled to contest the election for the post of Chairman; he having remained absent for three consecutive meetings of the Board.4. The election of the Municipal Council School Board was held in Decem...

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its Regional Of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR63; 2006(6)BomCR766

Lavande A.P., J.1. All these appeals are being disposed of by common judgment since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these appeals.2. State of Maharashtra acquired lands belonging to several persons, including those of the respondents in the present appeals for the benefit of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as. The Corporation.) under the provisions of Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the Collector, the land owners filed the application under Section 34 of the Act claiming higher compensation. In all the references the State of Maharashtra was made party. The Corporation was not joined as party in the references. The Court, after considering the evidence led by the claimants and State of Maharashtra enhanced the compensation. Aggrieved by the judgments and orders passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur in several Land Acquisit...