Mumbai Court December 2009 Judgments

Central Warehousing Corporation (a Govt. of India Undertaking) Vs. For ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj658

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. The question as referred by the Learned Single Judge of this Court for consideration of the larger Bench, is as follows:Whether in view of the provision of Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if any Agreement between Licensor and Licensee contains a clause for arbitration, the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 would be ousted?2. The background in which the matter has been placed before us to examine the above question can be briefly mentioned as follows:The Petitioners are lessees in respect of godown premises admeasuring 18,850 sq. meters being Shed TW-1 at Cotton Green Depot. The Mumbai Port Trust is the owner thereof who vide letter dated 26th February, 1975 gave the said premises on lease to the Petitioners. Sometime on or around 19th September 2002, the Respondents approached the Petitioners for storage facilities. By a Memorandum of Agreement dated 19th September 2002, the storage fa...

D.R. Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj765

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This petition has been placed before the Full Bench of this Court in pursuance of the order of the Division Bench dated 18th March 2009. Pursuant to the order dated 9th April 2009, the entire writ petition has been placed before us along with the applications. We had also directed notice to be issued to Learned Advocate General and learned Assistant Government Pleader (A.G.P) appearing for the State accepted notice on behalf of learned Advocate General.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the Government Resolution (G.R. For short) dated 15th November 2007. Although, the other relief pertain to the orders of the Slum Tribunal, passed in the year 1999-2000, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner confined his arguments to the challenge to the G.R. Dated 15th November 2007. Thus, he sought reliefs in terms of prayer Clauses (a)(i) and (b) of the petition.3. This petition has been...

icici Bank Limited, Regd. Office – Landmark, Race Course Circle, ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member. Heard. (1) In filing this appeal there is delay of 33 days. For that purpose, the Appellant has moved Condonation of Delay application, numbered as Misc. Application No.2152 of 2007, which is supported by affidavit. Sufficient grounds have been mentioned that bank at Nashik had to send papers to Mumbai for consultation by legal team of the head office. Thus, considerable time was required in filing the appeal and delay of 33 days has been caused. Delay is not intentional or deliberate and delay can be condoned subject to certain cost. We are inclined to condone the delay subject to cost of Rs.3,000/- to be payable by the Appellant to the Respondent. (2) We also heard appeal on merits. It has been contended by Counsel for Appellant that though Bank had served with the Notice by District Forum, for one or other reason the Appellant could not file Written Statement and ultimately complaint was decided without say fi...

Han Motors (i) Pvt. Ltd., Showroom Kartik Complex, Opp. Laxmi Industry ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member. Heard both Counsels. (1) There is a delay of 414 days in filing this appeal. This delay appears to be quite huge, but, on going through the merits of the case, we are finding that one chance may be given to the Appellant as the Consumer forum has granted reliefs erroneously and it is for this reason we are stepping into condone of the delay that has been occurred in not filing the appeal within time. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to allow Misc. Application No.515/2009 for condonation of delay subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by Appellant to the Respondent. (2) We also heard Counsels on merits. We are finding that for the reasons best known to the Appellant, they preferred not to contest the matter before the Forum below, so they are facing ex-parte order. Impugned order is such that some reliefs ought not to have been granted by the Forum. The estimate given was of Rs.21,160/-, whereas, ultima...

Sitaldas K. Motwani Vs. Director General of Income Tax (international ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN44(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 24th February, 2009 passed by the Director General of Income Tax (International Taxation, New Delhi ('respondent No. 1' for short) Under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961 ('the Act' for short), whereby and whereunder, the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the return for claiming refund for the A.Y.200001 was rejected.Factual Matrix2. The undisputed factual matrix drawn from the impugned order are, that the Assessee, a Nonresident Indian settled in Hong Kong, is assessable to tax by the Joint Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), Range3, Mumbai, falling under the jurisdiction of the D.I.T. (International Taxation), Mumbai. During the accounting year relevant to the A.Y.200001, he invested in the shares of Indian Companies and earned Short Term Capital Gains of Rs. 2,09,05,250/. The concerned bank with whom the assessee was maintaining his regular account, deducted the tax at source @...

Lalita Krishnaraj Parekh and Rakesh Krishnaraj Parekh Both of Bombay, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj701

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioners have filed the present Petition for a Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Krishnaraj Jagjivandas Parekh (the deceased) dated 5th October, 1992, who expired on 22nd December, 1995.2. As caveat was filed by the caveatrix, the petition is converted into Suit bearing No. 61/1997.3. Petitioner No. 1 is the wife of the deceased. Petitioner No. 2 is the son of the deceased.4. The caveatrix is one of the daughter of the deceased. The other two daughters namely Bina and Shraddha have not challenged or objected at any point of time to the Petition.5. Considering the pleadings and the documents, this Court on 10.12.2007 framed the following issues:(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the Will dated 5th October, 1992 is a last will and is validly executed, as required by Law?(2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the deceased was in a sound state of disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will dated 5th October, 1992?(3) Whether the plaintiffs prov...

The Chief Executive Officer Citibank Vs. Shri ShamsudIn K.Zaveri and O ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Honble President Heard Ms.Kejal Bang-Advocate for the appellant and Ms.Talat Hawa-Advocate for the respondent no.1. This is an appeal filed by City Bank as against the order passed in consumer complaint no.DF/MSD/193/2006 by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum on 20/12/2007. Ld.Counsel for the appellant on instructions from the bank states that the bank is not desirous to prosecute the appeal and the bank will discharge its obligation as per the order of the District Consumer Forum. Her statement is accepted. Leave to withdraw the said appeal is granted. Hence the following order:- Order: 1. Appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn. 2. Misc.application stands disposed of. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

The Deputy General Manager Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd., M ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President None present for the parties. This appeal is of 1999 arising from the consumer complaint no.173/1997 decided by District Consumer Forum, Thane on 03/07/1999. Appeal has been filed by the original opponent no.3 namely Deputy General Manager, Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Sion branch, Mumbai. Respondent no.1 is an original complainant. Original opponent nos.1 and 2 have not been joined as party respondents to the present appeal. By the order dated 03/07/1999 passed by said District Consumer Forum, Thane complaint was dismissed as against original O.P.nos.1and2 and while it was allowed as against original opponent no.3 namely appellant herein and the appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.18,440/- by way of damages and Rs.1000/- by way of cost. Said amount was to be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order. The facts are not in dispute. Complainant had invested with the original O.P...

Harish Vithal Kulkarni, Hindu, Indian Inhabitant and Shivanand Vishwan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR1; 2010(1)MhLj402

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.Ex praecedentibus et consequentibus optima fit interpretatio The best interpretation is made from things preceding and following.1. Historical background leading to enactment of a statute has been recognized in law as one of the relevant considerations while interpreting a statutory provision and even while examining the extent of its scope and application. Legislative intent and object and reasons of enactment are also accepted as legitimate tools of the law of interpretation. In Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes (Twelfth Edition by P. St. J. Langan) the observation of Sir George Jessel M.R. are noticed when he said, 'the court, is not to be oblivious...of the history of law and legislation. Although the Court is not at liberty to construe an Act of Parliament by the motives which influenced the Legislature, yet when the history of law and legislation tells the Court, and prior judgments tell this present Court, what the object of the Legislature was, the ...

Suryakant Kisan Pujari Vs. the Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj870

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution impugns the order passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Pune (for short 'the Scrutiny Committee) dated 6/9/2002 thereby invalidating the Tribe's claim of the petitioner's daughter Priya and cancelling the caste certificate dated 6/5/1991 issued in her favor by the Executive Magistrate, Phaltan. In the academic year 2002-03 Priya passed her Higher Secondary School examination and was seeking admission in medical / engineering colleges against a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribes. She, therefore, approached the Scrutiny Committee for verification of her Tribe's claim through the Principal of Yeshwantrao Chavan Junior College at Phaltan where she was a student in the academic year 2001-02. In support of her claim she submitted the following documents:(1) A school leaving certificate of herself issued by the Head Master, Shriram Balak Mandir, Phaltan, wherein the caste ...