Mumbai Court October 2009 Judgments

Forum Diamonds, Vs. Bank of Baroda (a Banking Company Constituted Unde ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR378; 2009(111)BomLR4617

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 21st August, 2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai, rejecting the prayer of the present petitioners claiming complete waiver of deposit as contemplated under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The challenge primarily is to the order dated 7th January, 2008 passed by DRT2, Mumbai, refusing to entertain interim relief in an application purported to have been filed under Section 17 of the Act, primarily on the ground that the application was not tenable being premature, as actual physical possession of secured assets under Section 13(4) had not been taken. According to the petitioner, it cannot be compelled to surrender the possession of secured assets as a condition precedent for invoking the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. It is also contended that since the debt has not been determined,...

Arun Vasantrao Betkekar Vs. Government of India (Department of Atomic ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ266Bom

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner in this Public Interest Litigation, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed that a detailed enquiry be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a retired High Court Judge of this Court in to the various complaints/representations made by him about the functioning of Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institute') and other Research Institutions and further to quash and set aside the actions of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in granting extensions and/or appointment of Respondent No. 3 as Chairman of Department of Atomic Energy (hereinafter referred to as 'DAE') even after the age of his superannuation being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law. The Petitioner has also prayed that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be restrained from granting any further extension and/or appointment on the said post to the private Respondent Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Respondent No. 3. To the present Petition,...

Shripad Anant Puranik Vs. the General Manager B.E.S. and T.,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR207

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Advocate for the Respondents waive notice. Having regard to the nature of challenge involved, we decided to finally dispose of the matter at the admission stage itself, by consent.2. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner who claims to be working as the Dy. General Manager of the Respondent B.E.S.&T.; undertaking of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumabi (MCGM) has prayed for writ to quash and set aside the appointment of the nominated enquiry officer being illegal, bad-in-law and in contravention of the provisions of the Service Regulations as applicable to B.E.S.&T.; undertaking. The Petitioner further prays that in the alternative some other official from Mumbai Municipal Corporation above the post held by the Petitioner be appointed as enquiry officer.3. Briefly stated, the Petitioner claims to have joined the B.E.S.&T.; undertaking on 5th October, 1974 as Probationary Engineer and in due course rose to the posi...

Sudhakar Shridhar Vispute Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4700

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 15/1994, whereby and where under above named appellant has been convicted for offences punishable Under Sections 306, 498-A of the I.P.Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand), in default rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months, on first count and rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand), in default rigorous imprisonemnt for one (1) month, on the second count.2. Somewhere in the year 1969, first marriage of the appellant was performed with Dagubai, who was the elder sister of deceased Meera. Out of that first marriage one son was born to Dagubai. He is DW 1 Prabhakar. Said Dagubai died due to illness after about ten (10) years of the marriage. The appellant performed second marriage. His relations with the second wife wer...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Emilio Ruiz Berdejo and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Bom)145

V.C. Daga, J.1. All these appeals filed under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), are against the order dt. 27th June, 2008 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short), Pune Bench, Pune in the income-tax appeals arising out of assessments meant for the asst. yr. 2001-02 and raising three questions of law.2. Counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent agree that first two questions sought to be raised in all these group of appeals are covered against the Revenue by virtue of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The first question stands answered in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. v. CIT : (2007) 211 CTR (SC) 545 : (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC). Whereas second question stands answered by the decision of the apex Court in the case of CIT and Anr. v. Pranoy Roy and Anr. (2009) 222 CTR 6 (SC): (2009) 19 DTR (SC) 102 : (2009) 309 ITR 231 (SC). On this backdrop the first two questions can hardly be said to be the substantial questi...

Smt. Jaswantiben Kantilal Shaha, Green Park, Ladawali, Taluka Vs. the ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S. R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member. (1) This appeal arises out of order/award dated 13.10.2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 14/2007, between Smt. Jaswantiben Kantilal Shah V/s. The Manager, Mahad Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd. and Anr., by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Alibaug, Forum below, in short. (2) This case pertains to one of the claims to the damaged caused to the stock insured due to heavy flood on 26th July, 2005. The stock stored was hypothecated with Respondent/Opposite Party No.1 The Manager, Mahad Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Bank. Said stock was insured as per the insurance policy taken by the Bank for and on behalf of trader, late Kantilal Shaha with the Respondent/Opposite Party No.2 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company, in short. Tea and edible oil are the only commodities which were covered under the Insurance Policy (Tea insured at sum of Rs.3,80,000/- and ed...

The Manager New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Smt. Jayanti S. Me ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member None is present for the appellant. Heard Mr.A.B.More-Advocate for the respondent. We have perused the appeal paper book. We are finding that appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation. There is delay of 3 months and 11 days in filing the appeal. Initially condonation of delay application mentioned that there was delay of 2 months in submitting this appeal, but while filing the appeal in place of 2 months, they have mentioned delay of 3 months and 11 days. We do not know whether this correction was made before the Notary or Registrar of this Commission, but we have reason to believe that this correction must have been made subsequently not before the Notary and therefore, this correction itself is doubtful. Delay of 3 months and 11 days in filing the appeal is not satisfactorily explained by the appellant Insurance Company. Ground mentioned is usual ground that Divisional office received copy on 5/12/2008. Then i...

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Through Its Divisional Manager, M ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S. R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member. (1) This appeal arises out of order/award dated 15.05.2009 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 221/2008, between Shri Shridhar Bhila Bhadane and Anr. and Life Insurance Corporation of India, passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Nashik, in short. (2) Undisputed facts are that, Respondent/Original Complainant had taken insurance policy from Appellant/Original Opposite Party, hereinafter referred to as the insurance company, bearing No. 960109518 and the sum insured was Rs.40,000/-. Said policy was valid upto 15.02.2028 and premium was payable half yearly basis @ Rs.1,021/-. The policy issued was under New Money Back Plan + Plus Profit without accident benefit under medical scheme. Insured late Jeetendrakumar Bhadane, accidentally fell into well and died on 19.08.2007. By its letter dated 14.11.2007 the insurance company settled the insurance claim with following amounts: At the rate sum assured paid upto value :...

Mrs. Gouri Paul Through Her Power of Attorney Holder Mousumi Paul, Mum ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Mr. Joseph Thattil-Advocate for the complainant and Mr.P. Basu-Advocate for the O.Ps present. Vakalatnama filed by Advocate Mr.Basu, taken on record. Opposite parties also filed objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain this consumer complaint. Both the parties are heard. This is a consumer complaint filed against the O.Ps relating to the medical negligence while performing Laparoscopic surgery of the complainant carried at the O.P.no.1 hospital by O.P.no.2 Dr. Arnab Basak, both having address at Kolkata. Said laparoscopic operation was performed on 06/10/2007. Complainant was discharged from the hospital of O.P.no.1 on 15/10/2007. Thereafter, she had pain in abdomen. It was found ultimately after a corrective surgery taken at Jaslok hospital Mumbai on 4/2/2008 that at the time of Laparoscopic surgery at Kolkata, a big mop stuck and surrounded by a big piece of small bowel was left w...

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Chinchwad Divisional Office, Pune Vs. M ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This is an appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Co./original O.P. against the judgment and award passed by Additional District Consumer Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no.47/2005, whereby while allowing the complaint, Forum below directed Insurance Co. to pay an amount of Rs.54,630/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from receipt of the order. O.P. was further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- towards the cost. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- 2. Three complainants filed the consumer complaint against M/s.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. seeking insurance claim, cost and compensation from the Company. Case of the complainants in the Forum below in the complaint was that complainant Mr.Vijaykumar Ramesh Pathak was the owner of tempo three wheeler bearing Registration no.MH-14-V-8907. Said tempo met with an accident on 4/6/2004 at Mumbai Pune Highway, Near Khadki railway station. It da...