Mumbai Court April 2009 Judgments

Shri Ashok Chopra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR191; 2009(111)BomLR2215

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Being aggrieved by dismissal of their appeals by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi, against the order passed by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing penalty of Rs. 3,60,000/- on M/s. Natural Granite Exports (the appellant in Appeal No. 8 of 2009) and penalty of Rs. 1,55,000/- each on the appellants in the remaining two appeals for contravention of Section 9(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short 'FERA'), the appellants have preferred these three appeals. As all the appeals arise out of the common orders and facts, they may be disposed of by this common Judgment.2. The appellant - M/s. Natural Granite Exports is a proprietorship concern, of which the appellant Ashok Chopra is the proprietor. They carried on business of export in marble. It is the contention of the Enforcement Directorate (the Revenue) that the appellant had imported marble from COGEMAR, an exporter from Italy. The marble of different quali...

Esquire Shipping and Trading Pvt. Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under th ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR176

P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, which is a private limited company, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that the decision taken by the first respondent to impose levy of penalty and additional landing charges amounting to Rs. 13,04,760/- and Rs. 10,79,560/- upon the petitioner is illegal and the said decision be quashed and set aside. The petitioner has therefore prayed for an appropriate direction to the first respondent to refund to the petitioner the amount of Rs. 23,84,320/- illegally levied and collected from the petitioner.2. The petitioner company submitted a proposal to the first respondent on 23rd September, 1997, seeking permission to use Mandwa jetty for unloading consignment of coal which was likely to arrive on 27th November, 1997. The first respondent, Maharashtra Maritime Board, issued a No Objection Certificate ('NOC' for short) to the petitioner on 17th November, ...

Britannia Industries Ltd. A company registered under the Companies Act ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR562; (2009)IIILLJ275Bom

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. While construing the provisions of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `Act'), learned Single Judge of this Court took a view that on a Reference under Section 25-O, the application for closure is referred and not merely the order passed by the appropriate Government and the Industrial Tribunal would have, therefore, to consider the application for closure de novo (Voltas Employees Union v. Voltas Limited and Anr. 2002 2 CLR 140). In Tilak Nagar Industries Limited v. The Commissioner of Labour, Maharashtra State and Ors. Writ Petition No. 2426 of 2004 (Aurangabad Bench) decided on 6.5.2004, the learned Judge further held that when the Government or Specified Authority decides to review the order and makes a Reference, the whole matter is referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. It is the application under Section 25-O(1) itself which is referred and once a Reference under Section 25-O(5) is m...

Gorakhnath Balu Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra through the Department ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR593; 2009(4)MhLj879

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner, who belongs to Hindu Dhangar caste which is recognized as NT-2 category, was admitted to B. D. S. course at M.A. Rangoonwala Dental College, Pune in the said category in the year 2003. Thereafter, the Petitioner passed his final year B.D. S. examination in the year 2007 and in accordance with the Rules, also completed his one year compulsory internship. The Petitioner thus satisfied all the eligibility criteria prescribed for taking the entrance examination CET for admission to Post Graduate Dental course. This examination was held on 25th January 2009, the Petitioner scored 79 marks out of 100 marks and was declared successful and placed at Sr. No. 39 in the State merit list and at Sr. No. 1 in NT-2 category. Respondent No. 2 had published the information brochure for the purpose of admission to Dental Post Graduate course. As per the terms and conditions of the brochure, the preference form was to be filled on 24th March 2009. It is the case of...

Avarsekar and Sons Private Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Shivdas Varade (Dr.) and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR596

Kumar Swatanter, C.J.1. Admit. By consent of the learned Counsel made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. With the consent of the learned Counsel and at their request, the Appeals are taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The Appeals arise out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing a Motion for interim relief in a suit for specific performance. The relief that was claimed was an order of injunction restraining the defendants from developing or creating third party rights in respect of the property which forms the subject-matter of the suit and the appointment of a Receiver in respect of the property.3. On 28th June, 1994 the appellant entered into an agreement for development in respect of property bearing City Survey No. 422 situated at tower Parel, Mumbai. The agreement was entered into between the appellant, the second and third respondents and Smt. Nalini Kalewar. Nalini Kalewar died and the first respondent is stated to ...

Sudhakar Murlidahr Sarvade and Another Vs. Sidhheshawr Sahakari Bank L ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mrs. S.P. Lale, Honble Member: This appeal filed by the appellants/org.complainants against the dismissal order dated 29/09/2005 passed by District Forum Solapur in consumer complaint no.125/2005. Being aggrieved by the said order the complainants themselves have filed this appeal. Brief facts giving rise to the case are as under: According to complainants they had two accounts with opp.party bank under pension deposit scheme. As per the said scheme the complainants deposited Rs.300/- per month for 57 months. After death of the complainants the opp.party bank will have to deposit Rs.300/- per month in the said account of the complainants. The complainants have opened the said pension scheme on 16/11/1998 respectively. It is alleged by the complainants that after maturity period i.e. after 57 months, the opp.party bank refused to deposit Rs.300/- per month in the saving bank account of the complainants as per the scheme. Therefore, the complainants filed the complaint before the Fo...

Atul Prravinchandra Shah, Propreitor, M/S. Pratik Constructions, Distr ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President: We heard Adv.Shri S.B.Prabhawalkar for the appellant and Adv. Shri U.B. Wavikar for the respondents. Ld.Adv.Shri Prabhawalkar takes us through the important documents placed on record and pointed out the observations of the District Forum. He vehemently argued that direction to complete the incomplete work without payment of remaining part of consideration is improper. On the other hand Ld.Adv.Shri Wavikar strongly supported the order passed by District Forum. The District Forum by clause no.2 of the operative part of the order directed the builder to rectify the defects, which are highlighted by the Court Commissioner in his report. In the alternative the District Forum directed the builder to pay Rs.2,35,195/- to the complainants for rectification of defects. This figure was worked out by the Court Commissioner and therefore, District Forum directed the builder either to rectify the defects on his own or to pay Rs.2,35,195/- to the flat...

Mr. Ravji Vithal Nare District Sindhudurg Vs. Telecom District Enginee ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member This appeal filed by the appellant/original complainant is directed against the dismissal order dated 15/3/1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sindhudurg in consumer complaint no.4/1998. Forum below dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant failed to prove his case and therefore not entitled to any relief claimed by him. Being aggrieved by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:- Complainant applied for telephone connection on 10/10/1991. Telephone connection was provided in or about in the year 1994. According to complainant, initially there was no problem in his bills and the bills were in the vicinity of Rs.150/- to Rs.350/- for two months billing cycle. However complainant applied for STD facility and same was allotted to the complainant. Complainant has alleged that after connection of STD facility the appellant started getting abnormal bill in the range of...

Mr. Rajendra Narayan Holkar, Kesar Baug, Indore and Another Vs. Jmj De ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. Petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order dated 25/1/2008 passed in Misc. application no.3/2008 arising out of Execution application no.E-38/2002. Misc.Application no.3/2008 has been decided by the Forum below on 25/1/2008. According to Ld.Counsel for the revision petitioner, he had filed Execution application no.38/2002. In that execution proceedings, he had prayed for issuance of warrant or initiation of Section 27 proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. But the Ld. District Consumer Forum in its judicial wisdom thought it fit to direct decree holder initially to file section 25 proceedings and if he fails to recover any dues then to move under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Till then Execution application no.38/2002 was kept in abeyance. Against that order decree holder filed Appeal no.759/2005 in this Commission. Commission was pleased to allow the said appeal and qu...

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (Through Chairman and Managing Direc ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This appeal arises out of order/award dated 29/01/2008 passed in consumer complaint no. 159/2005, Mrs.Gopujkar Jyoti Subhashchandra V/s. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. by District Forum, South Mumbai(Forum below in short). It was the case of the renewal of medicalim policy taken by couple Jyoti and Subhash Gopujkar. When term of previous medicalim policy was about to expire the couple sent cheque of premium to renew the policy. The same was returned expressing regret that the insurance company considering the previous adverse claim ratio was unwilling to renew the policy. Feeling aggrieved thereby complainants filed the consumer complaint. Their contention was upheld by the Forum below and impugned award was passed. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the opposite party/insurance company has preferred this appeal. Final order of the impugned order reads as under: 1. We direct the opp.parties to renew the policy of the complainants immedi...