Mumbai Court December 2009 Judgments

Lahu Lakma Bije Vs. Kirtikumar Dayalji Kothari and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj973

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. These First Appeals challenge the common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane in Motor Accident Claim Application Nos. 398 to 406 of 1983. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim applications on the ground that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals as under:A group of labourers alongwith their children boarded a motor truck No. MWT 2994 owned by Respondent No. 1 on 20.21983. At about 2 pm near Village Narangi, Taluka Dahanu, they loaded the truck with their cooking utensils, firewood and clothes tied in gunny bags and/or bundles. They were proceeding to a brick kiln where they were assured of work. When the aforesaid truck stopped at Virar Phata, the driver of the truck enquired with them whether they wanted a lift in his truck. Accordingly, all the labourers boarded the truck. The driver charged them Rs. 1.50/for the luggage of each labourer and Rs. 1.50 per passenger. The truck was alre...

Gkn Sinter Metals Private Limited (Formerly Known as Gkn Sinter Metals ...

Court: Mumbai

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The only question raised in this petition is, whether the Customs authorities are justified in coercively collecting the customs duty demand with interest on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the export obligation discharge certificates ('EODC' for short) when, firstly the application for EODC filed by the petitioner are pending before DGFT and secondly the period of limitation for filing appeal before CESTAT against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) has not expired2. Since the above question is raised again and again, we admit the writ petition and take it up for final hearing by consent of both the parties.3. The petitioner company manufactures automobile components. The petitioner had obtained several advance licenses from the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT for short) under which the petitioner could import raw materials duty free and the export the final product to the extent specified in the respective advance licences. Accordingly, und...

Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Vandana Joshi and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR69

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The challenge in these proceedings is to an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 22nd January, 2009. The Petitioner has been directed to reinstate the First Respondent with full backwages and continuity of service. The issue upon which the outcome of these proceedings turns is whether the First Respondent was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal held that the First Respondent was a workman and that the termination of service was not lawful.2. The First Respondent was appointed by the Petitioner as a Personal Financial Consultant on 2nd May, 2006. The letter of appointment stipulated that the First Respondent was being placed in the management cadre of the Petitioner at Band 8B. The addendum to the letter of appointment contained a declaration that the First Respondent had read and accepted the terms and conditions of appointment. During the course of the evidence before the Industrial...

Pioneer Drip Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. B.V.V. Satyanarayana Managing D ...

Court: Mumbai

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is a petition filed by the original accused person challenging issuance of process in Summary Criminal Case No. 2972 of 2004, filed in the Court of 2nd Jt. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon, which order was confirmed in Criminal Revision Application No. 142 of 2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalgaon, on 23.06.2009.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.3. It is no more disputed that the respondents M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., Jalgaon filed Criminal Case No. 2972 of 2004 against the present petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is alleged that the respondent company has business of manufacturing/marketing PVC pipes, irrigation system and components etc. Present petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of petitioner No. 1 and it is also doing business of PV...

Mr. Deepak Mohandas Navlakha, Prop. M/S. Navlakha Group of Housing, Pu ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: (1) Heard Advocate Mr. Misal, holding for Advocate Mr. S.J. Gogawale, for Appellant. He prayed for adjournment on the ground that Advocate appearing in this matter is out of station. (2) That cannot be the ground to adjourn the matter. Respondent is present. He appears to be senior citizen. He is coming all the way from Pune and it is not desirable to adjourn the matter. Appellants Counsel is not ready to argue the matter. There is a delay of 69 days in filing this appeal. Delay is not properly explained by the Appellant. He is simply making statement in the Condonation of Delay Application that Appellant had gone to Dubai for business purpose. That cannot be the just and sufficient cause for condonation of delay. We are not inclined to condone the delay of 69 days. As such, we pass the following order: Order: (i) Misc. Application No.1328/2009 for condonation of delay stands rejected. (ii) Consequently, appe...

Chief Engineer Vs. Mr. Sudhir K. Ghotkar

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President None present. This matter was on board on 13/8/2009. On that day misc. application no.479/2009 was rejected and the matter was fixed for final hearing on 07/12/2009. On 07/12/2009, matter appeared on board for final hearing. However, no one was present and, therefore, by way of abundant precaution in the interest of justice matter was adjourned to 3 weeks. When today matter is called no one is present on behalf of the appellant and the respondent. Therefore, there is no option but to consider the matter on merits and decide it. Order passed in consumer complaint no.473/1998 by the District Consumer Forum Thane on 03/08/2006 is under challenge. Respondent-original complainant had filed complaint as against the appellant-original O.P. challenging the bill given for Rs.40,000/- which covers period of 3 years. However, it appears that during the pendency of the said complaint, bill was corrected. However, District Consumer Forum ha...

Mr. Anilkumar Dubey Vs. M/S. Mishra Builders and Developers Through It ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member. Heard Advocates. (1) This appeal has been directed against the judgement/award passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Thane in Complaint No.98/2007 decided on 27.02.2008. The Forum below while allowing the complaint directed Respondent Builder to refund amount of Rs.3,61,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @18% per annum. Not satisfied with the inadequate compensation awarded by the Forum below, the Original Complainant has filed this appeal. (2) There is delay of 64 days in filing this appeal. Delay is properly explained by the Appellant by filing Condonation of delay application, which is supported by Affidavit. He has also filed medical certificate in support of his claim that he was suffering from illness during the relevant time and therefore, there is delay of 64 days. We are inclined to condone the delay in filing this appeal by allowing the condonation of delay application withou...

R.S. Jiwani Vs. Ircon International Ltd., a Government of India

Court: Mumbai

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Law of Arbitration was earlier governed by Indian Arbitration Act, 1899. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 also provided for arbitration as Special Proceedings in the following terms:89. Arbitration. (1) Save in so far as is otherwise provided by the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899; or by any other law for the time being in force, all references to arbitration whether by an order in suit or otherwise, and all proceedings there under, shall be governed by the provisions contained in the Second Schedule.(2) The provisions of the Second Schedule shall not affect any arbitration pending at the commencement of this Code, but shall apply to any arbitration after that date under any agreement or reference made before the commencement of this Code.The said provision however, was repealed by Section 49 and Schedule III of Arbitration Act (10 of 1940). The Arbitration Act of 1940 itself was repealed by Section 85 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter...

Rajasthan Patrika Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar Bihari and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj944

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule.2. With the Consent of the Counsel, the Petition is taken up for final hearing. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service.3. The First Respondent moved a complaint of Unfair Labour Practices under items 3, 9 and 10 of Schedule (IV) to the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The challenge in the complaint is to an order that was passed by the Petitioner, by which the service of the First Respondent was transferred from Mumbai to Barmer in Rajasthan.4. The Petitioner publishes a Hindi news paper and has establishments in Jaipur, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh. The Petitioner is stated to employ about 1858 employees all over India. Amongst, them are 600 reporters who are working journalists.5. The First Respondent was initially employed as a reporter at Surat, on or about 15th October 2003. According to the First Respondent, he was assured that he would be placed at Mumbai after a period of three or four months, since an...

Lawyers Collective, a Society Registered Under the Societies Registrat ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR32; [2010]186TAXMAN494(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Basically two questions are raised in this petition. They are, firstly, whether the permissions granted by the Reserve Bank of India to the respondent Nos. 12 to 14 foreign law firms to establish their place of business in India (liaison office) under Section 29 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 are legal and valid ' Secondly, assuming such permissions are valid, whether these foreign law firms could carry on their liaison activities in India only on being enrolled as advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961 'To be specific, the question is, whether practising in non litigious matters amounts to 'practising the profession of law' under Section 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961 2. The Parliament has enacted the Advocates Act, 1961 ('1961 Act' for short) to regulate the persons practising the profession of law. To ensure the dignity and purity of the noble profession of law, the 1961 Act provides for establishment of the State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of...