Mumbai Court November 2009 Judgments

Mr. Dattatraya Rajaram Jadhav Vs. Mr. Baban Joty Katkar

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President 1. In this matter notice before admission was issued and it has been served on respondents. For last two dates respondents are absent. Therefore, we heard Mr. P.M. Jadhav-Advocate for the appellant. 2. Appellant is an original complainant in consumer complaint no.44/2008 decided by District Consumer Forum, Satara. Appellant has filed this complaint for medical negligence as against the respondent. Son of the appellant Mst.Dattatraya was admitted in the respondents hospital on 09/07/2007, since he was suffering from ailment of pre-diagnosed appendix. It appears that the respondent is a Physician and, therefore, respondent cannot perform the surgery. Having found that surgery is probably required to be done, respondent called Dr.Ajit Mehta from Sangli. Said Dr.Ajit Mehta visited the respondents hospital on 14/7/2007 at about 8.00 p.m. He examined Mst.Dattatraya and advised that he requires operation of appendix. However, it appear...

Aniruddha S/O Ganesh Pathak Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Polic ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALD(Cri)463

S.S. Shinde, J.1. This application is filed with prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 15-5-2008 lodged with non-applicant No. 1 vide Crime No. 229/2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 186, 294 and 506 along with Chapter Proceeding No. 130/08 under Sections 107 and 116(3) of Cr.P.C. and so also the Chargesheet No. 280/2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1, Akola arising out of Crime No. 229/2008.2. Background facts of the case as disclosed in the application are as under:The applicant is permanent resident of Akola(State of Maharashtra). The applicant is a Bachelor of Technology from Shivaji College, Akola. The applicant after completing his graduation, has further taken his Law Degree and has started practice at District Court, Akola in September, 2004 and since then is actively practicing before the District Court, Akola and the High Court. The applicant has also cleared the examination conducted by the M.P.S.C. for the post of Civil Judge (Ju...

Prashant S/O Vinayak @ Vitthal Deshmukh and Vinayak @ Vitthal Ganeshra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj968

A.P. Bhangale, J.1. This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 109/1995 on 13.02.1998 by the learned Joint District Judge & Exofficio Additional Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the claim was partly allowed and appellants herein were held jointly and severally liable and directed to pay sum of Rs. 1,20,000/inclusive of amount of 'no fault liability' with interest, at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, from the date of application till its realization.2. The facts in brief are that: on 23.11.1994 at about 2.00 p.m. Miss Rashmi D/o Hariprakashsingh, aged about 16 years, was going by her bicycle to her College, at Paras, Dist. Akola. While passing through a residential colony at Paras, from the opposite direction, a motorcycle of Hero Honda make, belonging to Vinayak Ganesh Deshmukh and driven by Prashant s/o Vinayak Deshmukh, aged about 16 years, came in high s...

Smt. Sunanda Jagannath Ruikar Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Sec ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj517

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the decision of the Scrutiny Committee thereby invalidating the petitioners Tribes claim as belonging to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe and cancellation and confiscation of the caste certificate dated 7/11/1988 issued in her favour by the Executive Magistrate, Sinnar, Dist. Nashik. In response to the advertisement published by the Secretary of the Banking Service Regulation Board, Western Group, Mumbai the petitioner had submitted her application to the said Board on 15/11/1986 and claimed that she belong to a Scheduled Tribe. She appeared for the written examination conducted by the Board on 10/5/1987 and after having passed the same she was called for personal interview when she was called upon to submit her bio-data. On 11/10/1988 she was informed that she was provisionally selected for appointment to the post of Clerk and her name was allotted to the Syndicate Bank (the Bank for short). A...

The Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs. the West Coast Paper Mills Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]319ITR390(Bom); 2010(1)MhLj759

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. There is a delay of 36 days in preferring review petition. There is an affidavit in support of the motion by Premanand J. ACIT showing cause.On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, their learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the order in Notice of Motion No. 787 of 2009 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 3592 of 2008 decided on 8.7.2009 where relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court this Court has taken a view that in an appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, there is no power to condone delay. In our opinion, the judgment is clearly distinguishable. In so far as appeal is concerned, the appeal is conferred by Statute and it is in that context that the court took a view that there is no power of condonation of delay.3. The question before us is in the first instance, whether power of review has been conferred under the provisions of Income Act, 1961. On behalf of the Review Petitioner, the learned Counsel draws our attention to t...

E-city Media Private Limited a Private Limited Company Vs. Sadhrta Ret ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2010]153CompCas326(Bom); [2010]97SCL142(Bom)

ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. By an agreement dated 22nd May, 2008 the Petitioner appointed the Respondent as an exclusive agent for designated branding sites situated within the premises of a shopping mall. Shorn of detail, the Petitioner permitted the Respondent to display advertisements at the mall, in a theatre and upon ticket jackets. During the term of the agreement there were disputes over whether all the facilities under the contract were made available by the Petitioner to the Respondent. On 29th August, 2008 the Petitioner, while recognizing deficiencies, offered to extend the duration of the contract as compensation. The Respondent by its email of 2nd September, 2008 agreed to accept the compensation recommended and proceeded to state that a formal amendment to the contract ought to be signed by the parties. The Petitioner by a communication of 26th September, 2008 recorded that a revised duration issued as agreed towards compensation, was being forwarded to the Respondent. Th...

Supreme Steels Vs. Shri D.H. Deshmukh and Dadarao Sarvaji Sukhdeve

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR80

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Petitioner - Employer has challenged the order dated 16.02.2005 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur in complaint ULP No. 282/1996 declaring that, by issuing charge sheet dated 10.01.1996, it had indulged in unfair labour practice falling under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTU & PULP Act' for short).2. The facts on record reveal that the respondent No. 2 employee did not report for duties from 07.11.1991 and filed ULPA Complaint vide ULP Complaint No. 379/1992, before the 2nd Labour Court, Nagpur contending that he was on ESI leave and has been orally terminated on 03.06.1992. He also sought interim relief by moving application under Section 30[2] of the MRTU & PULP Act and, Labour Court on 17.05.1995 directed petitioner - employer to provide him work. On 10.01.1996, the employer issued charge sheet alleging that employee was unauthoriz...

Baburao S/O Umaji Kawale and Thakaji S/O Gouba Tamkhane Vs. N.R.B. Sal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR107

B.R. Gavai, J.1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 17/1/2009 passed by the learned Cooperative Judge in M.A. No. 100 of 2005 thereby allowing the application filed by the respondents for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the dispute dismissed in default and the order dated 21/7/2009 thereby rejecting the Revision filed by the petitioners.2. Mr. Solunke, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that an application for restoration of the dispute was filed without filing an application for condonation of delay, though the application for restoration was admittedly find beyond limitation. He submits that only after it is pointed out by the petitioners that the restoration application was beyond limitation, an application for condonation of delay was filed. He further submits that an application for condonation of delay has been allowed without there being any valid reasons. He submits that the appellate court without ...

Smt. Maya D/O Hariharrao Deshpande Vs. the State of Maharashtra Throug ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj865

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.2. Facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows:[a] Petitioner got employment and 3rd joined with respondent No. 2 on July, 1973, and remained in the same employment continuously till she attained 60 years of the age of superannuation.[b] Govt. of Maharashtra has extended the benefit of pension to the class of employees to which petitioner belongs.[c] The Scheme, when formulated, created following categories:[i] The employees who were in 30th service prior to September, 1982, and are eligible for Contributory Provident Fund and opt in favour of pension.[ii] The family member of eligible employee, who was 1st in employment on October, 1982 and dies 31st before January, 1984 without exercising option, is entitled to be governed by more beneficial scheme amongst pension or Contributory Provident Fund.[iii] The employees in service 30th prior to September, 1982 and who do opt in favour of Contributory Pro...

Jayashree Narendra Katariya and ors. Vs. Somnath Damodhar Kale,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR20

N.D. Deshpande, J.1. These are three Civil Appeals directed against one and the same judgment and award dated 14-9-1995 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in Motor Accident Claims Application No. 63 of 1989.2. The appellants in First Appeal No. 41 of 1996 are original claimants who are legal heirs of deceased Narendra Kataria who died in a road accident on 21-1-1989. They had filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation. They had filed a claim of Rs. 5 lacs by way of compensation against the truck driver (Respondent No. 2) of the offending vehicle namely; truck No. MTB 4728 belonging to Somnath Damodhar Kale (Respondent No. 1), the truck owner and also the Insurance Company (respondent No. 3) The award came to be passed directing all respondents, jointly and severally to pay to the appellants a sum of Rs. 2,37,000/- only with interest @ 12 per cent p.a. and for Rs. 2,62,000/-, it was disallowed and dismissed by learned Me...