Mumbai Court November 2009 Judgments

Shri Dudhganga Vedganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. State of Mah ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR122

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Rule by consent. Heard forthwith.2. The Petitioner is a specified society as classified under Section 73(G) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 which hereinafter referred to as the 'M.C.S. Act'. On 23.6.2009 respondent No. 2 published the programme for finalisation of the voters' list. The society on 16.7.2009 published the provisional voters' list under Rule 4(2) of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1971 hereinafter referred to as 'Election Rules'. The objections to the provisional list of voters were to be submitted on or before 24.7.2009. It is the case of the petitioners that some objections have been filed to the said provisional list of voters.3. Petitioners state that simultaneous with the publication of the programme for finalisation of the voters' list, respondent No. 2 directed respondent No. 3 to hold an enquiry under Sections 25 and 25-A of the M.C.S. Act, 1960 and the said enquiry was to b...

Ketan T. Tirodkar Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4530

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Rule. The petition has been heard for final disposal by consent of the parties.2. The petitioner who is one of the accused in Special MCOC Case No. 11 of 2004 while in custody in connection with the said case, has forwarded his petition through the central prison at Mumbai on 26.9.2007.3. According to the petitioner when the Investigating Officer Shri S.S. Kamble, (retired ACP) of DCB(C.I.D.) was in the witness box for recording his depositions in Special MCOC Case No. 3 of 2003, he was present in the said court and the depositions of the said Investigating Officer indicated that he wanted to arrest Shri Rajendra Vale, Dy. Municipal Commission of Greater Mumbai in connection with Special MCOC Case No. 3 of 2003, but was prevented from doing so at the instructions of the Home Minster and the Police Commissioner, Mumbai. It is his case that the depositions of Shri S.S. Kamble indicated that there was nexus between the officers of the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mum...

The Solapur District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Shri A.J. Bhosale, G ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR145

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. A large part of the country, and particularly this region, depends on the nature and the monsoon for cultivation of land. Many times, crops fail due to drought or due to floods and sometimes due to crop diseases. The cultivators are generally required to secure loan for the purpose of sowing operations and other agricultural activities, but in case of failure of crop, it becomes difficult for them to repay the loan and once they fail to repay the loan, they will not be eligible to obtain crop loan till earlier loan is repaid. To provide some support to the cultivators and to avoid such contingencies, the Union Government framed an Insurance Scheme entitled 'Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme ('CCIS' in brief) from kharif season of 1985 with the object to provide financial support to farmers in the event of crop failure as a result of drought, flood, etc., to restore the credit eligibility of the farmers for the next crop season after the crop failure and to support a...

Amarchand Kunjilal Sharma Vs. Kondu Dagdu Paulkar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR803

Naik Vasanti A., J.1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the orders passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim dated 11.9.2003, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the suit. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed the Regular Civil Suit No. 60/2002 against the petitioner alleging therein that they had a right to perform pooja and archa in the temple of Devi-goddess situated in Field Gat No. 374, measuring 1 hectare 48 r, of village Wanoja. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had prayed for a declaration that they being the members of Mang Community, had a right of pooja and archa in the said temple along with other villagers of the village Wanoja. It was pleaded by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner was restraining the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from performing their pooja and archa in the said temple.2. Prior to the institution of the Regular Civil Suit No. 60/2002 by the respondent Nos. 1 an...

Sudhir Rajaram Teli Vs. the Sales Department, the Premier Automobiles ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President: This matter is pending since 1998 without admission. Ld.Counsel for the appellant is absent so also the appellant is absent. We heard Adv.Shri S.C.Surana for the respondent no.1. None for respondent no.2. By notice dated 17/08/2009 sent under postal certificate, the parties were informed about todays date. Notices not returned unserved or undelivered. In view of the said notice, no one is present for appellant and respondent no.2. We treat the service Complete . With the consent of respondent no.1, we proceeded to decide the matter finally. Appellant has booked a car on 07/01/1994 with respondent no.2, who is a dealer of respondent no.1 and he deposited booking amount of Rs.20,000/- with the respondent no.2. It appears that at a later stage the appellant decided not to purchase the said car and therefore, he informed the respondent no. 1 and 2 accordingly and demanded an amount of Rs.20,000/- with interest. So far as these fac...

Shri Ravikant Suryaji Rasam Vs. Shri Anil Yashwant Dabbholkar

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President: Perused the order passed by District Consumer Forum, Sindhudurga. No doubt in the present matter the appellant has filed a claim stating that certain works have not carried out by the respondent/contractor and thereby, claiming certain amount. Commissioner was appointed. From the Commissioners report it is revealed that that the work carried out by the respondent is of low quality. However, the particulars given by the appellant were also found incorrect because building was not coloured. Appellant also had given details of expenses incurred to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh. We heard Adv.Shri P.B.Sawant for the appellant. Facts are disputed between the parties. The main reason for which the District Forum has refused to enter into controversy because the respondent/contractor has already filed a civil suit in respect of dispute between the parties bearing no. 66/2008 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sindhudurga. After the servi...

Zim Laboratories Limited Through Its Director Vs. Nagpur General Labou ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj173

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Parties to both the petitions are practically same. Respondents in Writ Petition No. 3324/2007 are the employees of petitioner therein and they are members of respondent trade union. In Writ Petition No. 1459/2005, the said trade union filed ULPA complaint No. 1367/1997 before Industrial Court, Nagpur, for declaration of unfair labour practice under Item 9, Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, (hereinafter referred to as Act 1 of 1972) and sought direction that the petitioner should be directed to provide work to its members with wages therefor. The complaint was allowed by the Industrial Court on 2nd February, 2005. Industrial Court directed the petitioner employer to treat the employees as continued in service from 07/09/1997 and provide them work as per seniority and availability of work. This order has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 1459/2005 by the employer. On 05/12/2005, while iss...

Sou. Mangesha Ashok Chavan Vs. Mr. Sayajirao Damodhar Khamkar,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR136; 2010(1)MhLj513

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.2. The Petitioner was elected as a Member of the Gram Panchayat Awarde from Ward No. 2. The Petitioner subsequently came to be elected as Deputy Sarpanch. A complaint was filed against the present Petitioner by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that on 12.9.2001 the Petitioner No. 1 had given birth to a third child. A show cause notice came to be issued by the Collector calling upon the present Petitioner to appear before the Collector. The Petitioner showed cause denying the allegation. The collector thereafter heard the matter and was pleased to pass the order of 17.9.2008 holding that the present petitioner had acquired disqualification as the Petitioner has given birth to a third child after the cut off date. The relevant provision is Section 14(1) Clause (J)(i) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'Panchayat Act'). The same reads as under:14. Disqualifications: (1) No person shall be a member...

Yogesh Mehta Vs. S.A. Contractor and Co.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR123

Mohta Anoop V., J.1. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. The petitioner has invoked section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Arbitration Act') and there by challenged the Award dated 11.2.2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator and thereby directed the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- together with interest at 15% p.a. from 1.10.2002 till payment and the counter claim of the petitioner was dismissed.3. The petitioner/original claimant is doing the business as builders and developers. The respondent is doing business as a broker/dealer in Transferable Development Rights (TDR). By an Agreement dated 3rd July, 2002 the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent for sale of 650 sq.mts. Of TDR to be generated from the Slum Rehabilitation Project of M/s. S.B. Developers. Under the agreement, a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- was advanced to the respondent. The further payment schedule was also fixed as the TDR could not be supplied wi...

M/S. K.G.N. Builders Through Its Partner Shri FakhruddIn A. Salam, Pun ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President 1. Heard Mr. R.P. Bafna-Advocate for the applicant. Mr. R.A. Thakurdesai- Advocate for the respondent. 2. This delay condonation application is filed to condone the delay of 1982 days. The undisputed facts are that the consumer complaint was decided on 31/3/2004 by the District Consumer Forum. Intimation was sent on 5/4/2004 and it was received along with the intimation sent by the District Consumer Forum. Copy of the order was also sent by the District Consumer Forum and it has been received by the appellant. Thus, the applicant had knowledge of the decision of the District Consumer Forum on 5/4/2004, when he received intimation along with the order. Thereafter, it appears that the appeal has been filed on 29/10/2009 and there is delay of 1982 days. For condonation of this delay, misc. application for condonation has been filed. The condonation of delay application, does not mention any ground for condoning the delay. From the ...