Mumbai Court November 2009 Judgments

Suresh J. Pimparkar Vs. Charkop Om Gayatri Chs Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR332

Anoop Mohta V., J.1. This is an application of the applicant/an intervenor seeking an intervention in the Arbitration petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act), whereby a challenge is made to the Arbitral Award arising out of a dispute and arbitration agreement between the parties, where the intervenor was not a party.2. Therefore, the issue is, whether a third person can intervene in a proceeding like this under Section 34 of the Act.3. Admittedly, the intervenor was not the party to the basic agreement between the parties where there is an arbitration clause. Admittedly, there is a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent/society. The applicant/intervenor is a subsequent purchaser. Principally, a person/party who is not a party to the arbitration agreement cannot be permitted to intervene in a petition under Section 34 of the Act against the Award. The remedy is elsewhere. It i...

Santoshrao Barkuji Rahate Through L.Rs. Vs. Additional District Magist ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR184

Naik Vasanti A., J.1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the respondent No. 1, dated 25.2.2004, reversing the order passed by the Rent Controller refusing to grant permission to the respondent landlady under Clause 13(3(ii) and (vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses & Rent Control Order, 1949.2. Few facts giving rise to the present petition are stated thus. The respondent is the landlady. The petitioner was allowed to occupy the tenanted premises on the ground floor, of the property owned by the respondent. The respondent had filed an application before the Rent Controller, Nagpur for grant of permission to issue notice to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order. Respondent pleaded that she required the suit premises for her bona fide occupation. It was the case of the respondent that the petitioner had paid rent only upto 31.3.1981 and had failed to deposit the rent thereafter. In a civil suit...

Ashok Arjunrao Dhoble Vs. Geetabai Bhimraoji and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR224

Naik Vasanti A., J.1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Additional Collector, Yavatmal in an appeal, filed by the respondent tenant under Clause 21 of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1949 reversing the findings recorded by the Rent Controller granting permission to the petitioner landlord to terminate the tenancy of the respondent under Clause 13(3)(ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order.2. The petitioner is the landlord. He had initiated the proceedings against the respondent under Clause 13(3)(ii), (vi), (vii) and (ix) of the Rent Control Order. It was the case of the petitioner that he required the suit premises for his bona fide occupation. It was pleaded by the petitioner that though the notice was issued to the respondent informing her about the purchase of the property by the petitioner in the year 1994, by both the original landlord and the petitioner also, according to the petitioner the respondent had failed to pay the ...

Dnyaneshwar Sopanrao Bhandare Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Sec ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR152

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Writ Petition is to be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself as per orders dated 12th June 2008. Accordingly, we have heard Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mandpe, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Kaptan, learned Counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 for some time and then they sought leave to place on record written notes of arguments. After the written notes were exchanged, the matter was fixed twice for oral hearing and ultimately was closed for judgment as no arguments could be advanced. As the matter was fixed for final hearing, we formally issue Rule and make it returnable forthwith.2. We have gone through the written notes of arguments filed by the petitioner as also by his employer Respondents No. 2 & 3. Shri Mandpe, AGP for respondent No. 1 has orally supported the appellate order passed by Respondent No. 1 - State Government.3. The challenge in writ petition is to the order dated 28.10.2005 passed by Respo...

Shailesh S/O Krishnarao Kohad Vs. the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificat ...

Court: Mumbai

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The present Writ Petition challenges the order of respondent No. 1 Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 13.04.2007 invalidating caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe. The certificate dated 31.07.1987 issued to him by the Executive Magistrate has been cancelled and confiscated. This Court has granted interim relief in the matter which continues to operate. The Writ Petition was to be heard and decided at the stage of admission along with other connected matters as the challenge relating to constitution of the Committee is common in all matters. However, at the stage of hearing, because of other distinct points involved in each matter, it was felt appropriate to decide this Writ Petition first.2. Before proceeding to narrate the facts and in order to avoid prolixity, we find it appropriate to mention the challenges as raised by the petitioner. The first and foremost challenge is to constitution of respondent No. 1 Committee, which has deci...

Shri Francis Paul Pereira, Vs. the Dy. Collector and Sub Divisional Of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR285

N.A. Britto, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.2. In this petition, filed in public interest, the petitioners challenge the setting up of an ice plant in survey No. 107/28 of Velim Village, Salcette Taluka, by respondent No. 7, and, the permissions granted for the purpose of running the same by the authorities namely respondent Nos. 1 to 6.3. The petition was taken up for hearing on various dates. On 2.9.2002 after respondent Nos. 7 and 8 made a statement before this Court that they will not carry out any further construction with regard to the said ice plant/factory they were directed not to carry out any construction. That was at the stage when the respondent No. 8 had applied for permission under Section 29 of the Goa Public Health Act, 1985. It was made clear that after the said permission was obtained by respondent Nos. 7 and 8 they were free to apply to this Court to run the said ice plant, and, on 17.2.2003 when the matter came up before this Court, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 w...

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Vs. Pessumal Paman ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj610

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 22nd August, 2008, delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Single Judge decreed the respondent/plaintiff's suit for payment of interest over the amount which was denied to the respondent/plaintiff by the appellants.2. The facts, which are material for deciding this Appeal, are as under:The appellants had engaged the services of the respondent/plaintiff as a Contractor for carrying out certain civil works. On 28/1/1987 a work order to that effect was issued. The said work was completed on 28/2/1988. The respondent/plaintiff raised certain claims in respect of additional material used and additional works like use of brick bats in place of bricks, use of pumps for de-watering etc. The claims which the respondent/plaintiff had raised from time to time were not entertained by the appellants-Authorities. Eventually on 26/10/1990 the Deputy Chief Engineer of the appellants held that the plainti...

Shakharamseth Employees Union a Registered and Recognised Union in Pal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR239

P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Appeal No. 302 of 2008 and Appeal (Lodging) No. 337 of 2008 are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 27th June, 2008 by which the learned single Judge permitted the highest bidder to withdraw its bid in respect of the land admeasuring 5,41,436 sq.mtrs. and directed a fresh public auction by disposing of the Court Receiver's Report. Appeal (Lodging) Nos. 336 and 347 of 2008 are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 12th March, 2008, fixing the reserve bid at Rs. 1650 crores for sale of land admeasuring 5,41,436 sq.mtrs.2. Since the point involved in all these appeals being common, all these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment at the admission stage itself.3. The ICICI Bank instituted a suit being Suit No. 3636 of 1999 as debenture holders of the Company in liquidation i.e. Pal Peugeot under debenture deed dated 21st December, 1997 for Rs. 136.79 crores. The said suit was filed on 12th May, 1999. On 30th June,...

Glochem Industries Ltd. Represented by Its Power of Attorney Holder Vs ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR269; LC2010(1)13

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Advocate for the private contesting Respondents waive notice. Notice to other Respondents is dispensed with being formal parties. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Having regard to the nature of challenge involved, we decided to finally dispose of the matter at the admission stage itself, by consent.2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India essentially takes exception to the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs-Respondent No. 4 dated 7/1/2009 on the Petitioners representation by way of opposition against Patent Application No. 413/MUM/2003A. In the Petition as filed, the Petitioners at the outset have given short background of the alleged invention claimed by the Respondent No. 1. It is stated that on 26/7/1985 a Patent being US Patent No. 4529596 was granted in the United States to Sanofi S.A.... This document discloses the compound Clopidogrel. By another patent issued on 11/7/1989 to Sanofi bea...

Sou.Nagubai Sidramappa Nadgeri Vs. Nirmala Nursing Home and Another

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member 1. This appeal arises out or order/award dated 27/4/2009 passed in consumer complaint no.388/2008, Sou.Nagubai Sidramappa Nadgeri v/s. Nirmala Nursing Home through its Proprietor Dr.Sou.Amboli A. Velankar and another passed by District Consumer Forum, Solapur. 2. It was a case of alleged medical negligence and forum below by impugned order dismissed the consumer complaint and feeling aggrieved thereby, original complainant- Sou.Nagubai Sidramappa Nadgeri preferred this appeal. 3. It is a case of appellant-original complainant Sou.Nagubai Sidramappa Nadgeri (herein after referred as complainant) that when she became pregnant, she went to Nirmala Nursing Home and was under their regular check and treatment during the period 16/11/2007 to 29/4/2008. When the delivery date approached, respondent-O.P.no.1-Nirmala Nursing Home (herein after referred as O.P.no.1) informed the complainant and her relatives that since she would not be av...