Mumbai Court November 2009 Judgments

The Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. S.M. Harke and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR103; 2010(1)MhLj750

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This batch of Writ Petitions before the Court raises a similar issue and has been heard together. Counsel state that the facts relating to all the cases are similar. Rule, With the consent of the Counsel, the Petitions are taken up for final hearing. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service.2. The Respondent workmen were employed as Senior Security Guards in the Security Department at the Trombay Thermal Power Station. The Petitioner supplies electric power to vital installations in the City of Mumbai including the Railways, Air Force, Hospitals, BARC, Oil Refineries and Defence establishments. All the workmen were on duty on 31st December 1999 in the general shift from 0730 hrs to 1630 hrs. At about 1315 hrs., the workmen were found to have consumed liquor alongwith three other workmen in the Security Guards' locker Room near the main gate of the Power House at the Trombay Thermal Power Station. The case of the management is that the workmen were caugh...

The Tata Power Co. Ltd. (Erstwhile Tata Electric Companies Comprising ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ329Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule,2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent waives service. With the consent of the Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.3. The First Respondent was employed with the Petitioner. During the course of his employment, the First Respondent was charged of the commission of offences under Section 302 and 498A of the Penal Code. By a Judgment dated 24th December 1997, the First Respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Penal Code on the ground that the benefit of doubt should be given to him. He was, however, convicted of offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the Penal Code. The First Respondent was in custody since 22nd December 1993. He was directed to be released on the sentence undergone on 5th February 1998. The Petitioner issued a notice to show cause to the First Respondent in pursuance of an Application received by the First Respondent on 14th January 1998, furnishing a copy of the Judgment of th...

M/S. Haneesha Corporation and Another Vs. M/S. Savla Foods and Cold St ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President None for the appellant. Heard Mr. S.B. Prabhawalkar-Advocate for the respondents. These matters were on board on 17/7/2009. Respondents appeared on that date and filed vakalatnama and also reply. Mr. Prabhawalkar has also raised objection in respect of limitation. Mr. Prabhawalkar states that on earlier occasion, when the matter was placed before the State Commission, this fact was pointed out to the Commission and the Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that he will file delay condonation application in the matter. Today we have looked into the file. There is no application filed. Mr. S.C. Shah is absent. We also noticed that there was direction to pay the cost. Said cost is also not been paid. For all these non compliances, we find that Mr. Shah and appellant are not interested in prosecuting the matter. Therefore, appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution. Hence, the order. Order Appeal stands dismissed for non pros...

Chhatrasal Son of Anandrao Telrandhe Vs. Prabhakar Son of Maniram Telr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR168

A.P. Bhangale, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant/original defendant No. 1 has challenged judgment and decree dated 21.2.1997 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 417 of 1993. Present appeal was admitted on 24th June 1998 and grounds set out in the memo of appeal are treated as substantial questions of law arising in the appeal.2. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that questions of law extracted from the grounds set out in the memo of appeal could be thus -(i). Whether Parvatibai wd/o Shankarrao Telrandhe could not have executed Will bequeathing suit house in favour of plaintiff Prabhakar Maniram Telrandhe ?(ii). Whether Parvatibai had no right, title or interest in the suit house ?3. Heard learned Counsel for appellant. None appears for respondents, though served. Having gone through the entire record; having heard learned Counsel for appellant and examining legal position, questions of law have to be answered in the negative and appeal o...

Networth Stock Broking Ltd. Vs. Madhava Rao Nadella

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR175; 2009(111)BomLR4622; 2010(1)MhLj582

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) with basic prayers against the Respondents to furnish/ to secure the amount pending the Arbitration proceedings and also for appropriate protective relief's for the value of a sum of Rs. 1,16,82,988.65.2. The Petitioner is a corporate share and stock broker having registration of the National Stock Exchange (NSE) and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and also trading member of the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). The Petitioner has about 185 branches throughout the India. The Petitioner is a listed company on the Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd.3. The Respondent has executed a Member-Client agreement and become constituent of the Petitioner. In view of this agreement, the parties are entitled to do the business of buying and/or selling and/or dealing in securities and trading in F & O segment (carry forward of positions in Future Stocks, index, ...

Dashrath Dada Chougule and ors. Vs. Grampanchayat, Village Bhose and a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR171; 2010(1)MhLj655

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The judgment of the Additional District Judge, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No. 107 of 1983 has been challenged in the present Second Appeal.2. The appellants are the heirs of one Narsappa Raghoba Chougule. The appellants contend that Narsappa Raghoba Chougule purchased the suit property which is CTS No. 402 situated at Miraj, admeasuring 15' X 16' from one Bhaskar Govind Utturkar. He purchased this property under a registered sale deed on 30.7.1907. According to the appellants, they were in possession of the suit property. However, the Village Panchayat i.e. Respondent No. 1 herein had encroached upon this property and was trying to construct a building on the property. A notice was issued Under Section 180 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act to the respondents by the appellants on 3.1.1977. It was contended that the suit property belonged to the appellants and that the village panchayat committee had no right over the suit property. The notice called upon the r...

Reliance Industries Limited a Company Registered Under the Provisions ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR159

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The factual matrix, leading to the filing of these petitions in the second round, could, in briefly, be set out as follows:The Government of Maharashtra announced its Industrial Policy sometimes in early 1993 and proposed not to charge electricity duty on the power generated by the captive power plants and its utilization. Clause 5.3.3.1 of the said policy reads as under:5.3.3.1 - On the power front, the State has always accorded a very high priority to this sector. Nearly one fourth of its plan outlay is earmarked for this purpose. Today, our installed capacity is 9,300 mega watts. In the next 5 years, we propose to add 5,500 mega watts to this capacity. Maharashtra was the first State in which private sector participation has been permitted in power projects. We have now been able to seek participation of an international power company which is planning to set up a large power plant based on liquefied natural gas in Ratnagiri at a total investment of Rs. 8,000 c...

New Laxmi Cycle Company a Partnership Firm Through Its Partner Shri Go ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR189; 2009(6)MhLj906

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner tenant before this Court is challenging the judgment dated 18/2/2005, delivered by the learned 5th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2003 and prays for dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 589 of 2001 filed by respondent landlord before the Civil Judge, Senior Judge, Akola. In that suit, eviction of the petitioner and possession was sought under Section 15 & 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The 2nd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola on 02/5/2003 decreed the suit partly and directed the petitioner tenant to handover the possession within two months. It decreed the suit only on the ground that his bona fide need was proved by the respondent landlord.2. In Regular Civil Appeal No. 190/2003, filed by the present petitioner, a cross objection or Counter appeal was filed by the landlord seeking entire relief as per plaint prayers. The learned 5th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Akola, found that the...

Ku. Hema D/O Vijay Nikhare Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR211; 2010(1)MhLj544

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable by consent. Petition is heard.2. The petitioner herein is challenging the order of termination of her services passed by respondent No. 2 on 18122008 and the order passed by respondent No. 3 Caste Scrutiny Committee on 1061991 invalidating her tribe claim.3. It is not in dispute that the fate of challenge to the order of termination of services is contingent upon fate of challenge to the order passed by respondent No. 3 Scrutiny Committee invalidating the petitioners tribe claim. Case proceeds on admitted background that the respondents do not have any policy to protect the employment of persons whose caste/tribe claim is invalidated or who got employment by suppression etc.4. It is seen that way back in 1991, the petitioners tribe claim was considered by respondent No. 3 Scrutiny Committee.5. Petitioner claims that when her tribe claim was scrutinized and invalidated, the petitioner was 17 years of age and her father had pursued the cause...

The Poona Post and Telecom Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. the Un ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR220; 2010(112)BomLR243; 2010(1)MhLj858

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution impugns the letter dated 29.3.2000 and the subsequent communications issued by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 denying to deduct the loan instalments from the salaries of the employees of the department of Posts and R.M.S. and to remit to the petitioner credit society. The petitioner further prays for a writ of mandamus or order in the like nature to the respondents to continue to deduct the amount of loan instalments and interest thereon from the monthly salaries and other dues payable to the employees of the Posts and R.M.S. departments, in view of the statutory obligations under Section 49 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. (hereafter referred to as the Act for short).2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Credit Society duly registered under the Act and the employees of the Postal Department and Telegraph Department, and Wireless Department are its members. It advances loan to its members/employee...