Mumbai Court November 2008 Judgments

Balu Baburao Mhatre Vs. Bharat Kumar Motilal and Company

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ547Bom

1. This Notice of Motion is taken up by the appellant (Original respondent) praying that the delay of 465 days in filing the present appeal be condoned. We have taken on record the affidavit of Mr. Mohandas Mithalal Jain partner of the respondent-company.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at some length. He has drawn our attention to the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. In the affidavit, following explanation is offered:I say that the aforesaid Writ Petition was being handled by the Union through their advocate Shri Rajesh Ghehani. I say that I was in constant touch with the union office bearers and was enquiring the status of the Writ Petition from the office bearers of the Union. I say that it appears that after the order dated September 5, 2006 was passed, the advocate had sent the file back to the Union for instructions along with the ordinary copy of the said order passed in the writ Petition. However, the said file was mixed up with some other pap...

Smt. Rabiya Khatun and ors. Vs. the M.S.R.T.C.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR1110]

Vasanti A. Naik, J.1. Heard Shri Jagdale for the petitioners, and Shri Wankhede for the respondent.2. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Labour Court, Akola, on 13.2.2001 dismissing the Complaint ULP No. 19 of 1995 filed by the original complainant Shri Abdul Rehman, as also the judgment passed by the Industrial Court, Akola, on 2.2.2007, in Revision ULP No. 30/2001 confirming the judgment passed by the Labour Court, Akola, on 13.2.2001.3. The petitioners are the legal heirs of original complainant who was working as a driver with the respondent-Corporation since the year 1982. The Corporation had issued a charge-sheet to the complainant for remaining absent from duty for a period of about 114 days, without making the necessary application and without any intimation to the Corporation. After holding a departmental enquiry against the complainant, the complainant was dismissed from service with effect from 27.11.1992.4. It was the case of the complainant be...

Shri Sunil Vinayak Ghatule Vs. Shri Dilip Changdev Khare and Another

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Mr. Justice B.B. Vagyani, Hon'ble President This appeal filed by appellant (org.opp.party no.1) in consumer complaint no. 133/06 is directed against the order dt. 26/4/07 passed by District Consumer Forum, Solapur. The District Forum allowed the consumer complaint with regard to defective papaya seeds and directed the agent and manufacturer of papaya seeds to pay an compensation of Rs. 6,,03,980/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of decision i.e. 26/04/2007 till the date of realisation. We heard Adv. Subodh Gokhale for appellant, Adv. N.R. Kalashetty for respondent no.1 and Adv.P.K.Pant for respondent no.2. From examination of the entire material placed on record, it is revealed that the present appellant had purchased papaya seeds from Dharati Beej Bhandar and Hindustan Krishi Seva Kendra. The papaya seeds were manufactured by M/s.Known-You Seeds (I) Pvt. Ltd. There is nothing on record to show that in the year 2004 the present appellant was authorized agent of M...

Shrikant JaIn Son of Narmada Prasad Jain, Junior Engineer Western Coal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR174; (2009)IILLJ577Bom; 2009(2)MhLj387

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respective Advocates waive service. 2. Hence Petition is called for hearing, as the petition can be heard and disposed of as a short question of law is involved.3. Petitioner herein, who is an employee of respondent no.3, is facing a Departmental Enquiry, as well is undergoing trial under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.4. In this petition, the petitioner is claiming that the proceedings of Departmental Enquiry need to be stayed/suspended until conclusion of the criminal trial against him. The reason thereto assigned by the petitioner like in similar claims is that:[a] The substratum and factual matrix in both proceedings, i.e., Departmental Enquiry and the case in the Criminal Court is one and the same.[b] The employer desires to adduce evidence against the petitioner on a set of witnesses, who as well are the witnesses, are cited in criminal proceedings.[c] If the same witnesses are examined in Departmental ...

Mr. Madhukar V. Khandeparkar (Since Deceased by Legal Representatives, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(111)BomLR102

A.P. Lavande, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners take exception to the judgment and order dated 04.01.1999 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Mundkar Revision Application No. 33/88 allowing the revision application filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5.2. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the present petition are as follows:In December 1975, the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and two others filed civil suit No. 267 of 1975 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji for eviction of petitioner No. 2 and her husband Madhukar Khandeparkar from the house bearing Village Panchayat No. 525 (hereinafter referred to as the suit house) situated at Taleigao. According to the plaintiffs in the said suit, the suit house was built by one Oidem alias Radhabai Khandeparkar with their permission and she was residing there alone as licencee. She expired in March 1975 without leaving any heirs and upon her death, the suit house remained closed. On or about 28.7.1975 Madhukar and his wife who wer...

Vakrangee Softwares Limited, a Limited Company Incorporated Under the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR657

S.B. Mhase, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed on 17th March 2008 in Notice of Motion No. 3588 of 2007 in Suit No. 1251 of 2000. In this notice of motion the plaintiff - appellant is seeking a mandatory direction calling upon the defendant No. 1 to withdraw the name of the plaintiff from the list of 'willful defaulters' and to issue injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding with a letter dated 27th November 2006 and from taking any steps threatened therein. For the sake of brevity and to avoid confusion, it is clarified that in this judgment the Appellants are referred to as the Plaintiff while the respondent - Central bank of India is referred to as the Defendant.2. It is also clarified that the suit No. 1250 of 2000 has been filed by the Appellant -Plaintiff as against the Respondent - Defendant in this Court, while the Respondent - Defendant has filed Original Application No. 770 of 2001 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai.3. In the suit No. 1251 ...

Goa Post and Telegraphs Credit Co-operative Society Limited, a Co-oper ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR179; 2008(111)BomLR10; 2009(2)MhLj810

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. Heard.2. By this petition, the Petitioner questions the legality and validity of a Notification dated 4-1-2002 issued by the Respondent No. 1 whereby the Respondent No. 2-Society has been granted registration in the area of operation of the Petitioner-Society.3. Few facts that are necessary for adjudicating the issues raised in the petition are narrated herein below:The Petitioner-Society is a Credit Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is undisputed that the Petitioner-Society has been operating in BSNL and prior to the establishment of BSNL the same was representing the employees working with the Post & Telegraphs Department at Goa. There are about 1125 employees working with BSNL who are capable of being enrolled as members of the Petitioner-Society. A perusal of the report prepared by the Assistant Registrar, while examining the application moved by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 9, shows that the Petiti...

Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, 24(2) ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR153; 2008(111)BomLR243; 2009BusLR162(Bom); 2008(232)ELT780(Bom); [2009]317ITR433(Bom); 2009[13]STR11; [2009]176TAXMAN260(Bom)

Vijay C. Daga, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.Perused appeal.Introduction:2. The Appellant- assessee is aggrieved by an order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench 'G', Mumbai (for short 'Appellate Tribunal') in Income Tax Appeal No. 5686/M/04 in respect of the assessment year 2001-2002.3. We admit this appeal and frame the following substantial question of law for consideration leaving all other questions open for reconsideration since the matter is being remanded to the Tribunal for the reasons recorded.Substantial Question of Law:Whether the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal after more than four months from the date of hearing without dealing with propositions and case laws relied by the Appellant suffers from non application of mind and non consideration of material on record and therefore bad in law?Submissions and Consideration:4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant brought a disturbing state of affair to the no...

Gilda Finance and Investment Ltd. Vs. Natenco Wind Power Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR129

Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The petitioner has challenged the Order dated 5.9.2008 restricted to the directions to pay Court fee as per Article 7, Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 on or before 25.9.2008 on the amount of Rs. 47,00,000/- (Rupees forty seven lacs). The petitioner/plaintiff has instituted this Court to restraining defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from enforcing the bank guarantee dated 15.1.2007 and 24.2.2007 till the rights of the plaintiffs are settled in connection with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 26.6.2006 and 9.12.2006.2. I The relevant Article 7 of Schedule I is as finder:Any other plaint application or petition including memorandum of appeal) to obtain substantive relief capable of being valued in terms of monetary gain or prevention of monetary loss, including cases wherein application or petition is either treated as a plaint or is described as the mode of obtaining the relief as aforesaid.A fee on the amount of the monetary gain or loss to be prevente...

Bhujang Nathuji Daf and anr. Vs. Ramkrishna Daulat Daf and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR165

Dharmadhikari, B.P., J.1. Heard Advocate Shri Kshirsagar for petitioner and Advocate Shri Patwardhan for respondents.2. The plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 777/1997 (re-registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 269/2001 before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Saoner) have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 16.01.2008 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Saoner on an application/objection of plaintiff. By the said objection filed on 04.08.2007 the petitioner contended that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (present respondent Nos. 2 and 3) have no right to cross-examine defendant No. 1.3. The petitioner claim that respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 is their uncle and there was partition of ancestral property between their father and said defendant No. 1. After getting possession of his separate property, defendant No. 1 sold away the same and thereafter encroached upon the property of petitioner and also procured mutation entries in his favour. After completing this ex...