Mumbai Court April 2009 Judgments

Dilip Krishnaji Kulkarni Vs. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR251; 2009AIRSCW7592

1. Heard. With consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at this stage.2. This Writ Petition raises a very short controversy which is considered in our order dated 7th October, 2008. Certain facts are undisputed and they are that the petitioner's services are governed by Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. He was sought to be retired on completion of 58 years on 31st March, 2009. He challenged the act of the respondent superannuating him on attaining age of 58 years, as according to the petitioner, he had a right to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. The respondents relied on a Government Resolution being Government Resolution dated 27th February, 2003. By this resolution, basically the effect was given to the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission and the resolution was termed as 'Revision of Pay Scales of Teachers/Librarians in Government/Non-Government Engineering/Tec...

Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR686; [2009]183TAXMAN404(Bom)

Rebello F.I., J.1. The petitioner in the instant case is a Co-operative Sugar Factory registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner by the present petition had challenged the constitutional validity of Section 206 of the Income Tax Act. That prayer has now been given up as learned Counsel fairly points out that the constitutional validity of the said provision has been upheld.The other prayer sought for by the petitioner is for a declaration that the orders of the 1st and 2nd respondents dated 26th September, 1994 and 25th February, 1994 are illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction. There are some other consequential reliefs which need not be referred to.2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of country liquor which is one of its business apart from manufacture of sugar. Section 206C as it now stands as substituted by the Finance Act, 1992 was introduced with effect from 1st April, 1992. The effect of the Section is that the seller of...

Kinnariben Shantilal Patel Vs. Rajmal Premchand Surana

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR711; 2009(6)MhLj487

Chandiwal K.U., J.1. On 9.1.2009, while hearing the Senior Counsel, this Court has directed to dispose of the matter at the admission stage itself. Consequently, record and proceedings were called, and verified by both the Counsels. Both the Counsels agree that the matter should be disposed of finally.2. Admit the appeal.3. Heard the Counsel. The Bank initiated recovery proceedings against principal borrower and guarantors. The claim was decreed, excluding Smt. Kinnari Shantilal Patel (hereinafter referred to as Smt. Kinnari). Since the decretal amount was not paid, recovery proceedings were initiated. The Recovery Officer, based on the orders of the Tribunal, took requisite steps. The property was subject to attachment, notices were issued and it was auctioned on 21.7.2008 and confirmed on 25.8.2008.4. Smt. Kinnari, felt aggrieved by the orders of Recovery Officer, wherein her share in the property was also put on auction, along with her other brothers or other borrowers in the matter...

indus Engineering Co. and anr. Vs. Asstt. Cit and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]184TAXMAN269(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners have approached this Court against the order dated 18th Dec, 1992 in respect of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. We are concerned with the assessment year 1985-86. The assessee had filed return of income for 1985-86 on 1-10-1985 which was subsequently revised.2. Action under Section 133A was conducted on 30-6-1987 at office and factory premises of assessee. The same was converted into search and seizure action. In the course of search and seizure action, apart from undisclosed stock, havala loans to the tune of Rs. 36,05,000 were admitted by the assessee. Out of these havala loans, the loans to the extent of Rs. 10,65,000 pertained to assessment year 1985-86 and, therefore, the same was taxed as income of assessment year 1985-86 along with interest claimed by the assessee on these loans.3. Commissioner (Appeals) vide letter dated 19-12-1988 confirmed the addition on account of bogus loan and disallowed the interest. T...

Dr. Jayesh Dube and Another Vs. Mrs. Saroj PravvIn Cheda, Mulund (E), ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Adv. Shri P.Y. Shankar for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this application aggrieved by the fact that without tendering his reply to the amendment application filed by the original complainant, the Forum below by its order dated 10/06/2008 allowed the amendment application filed by the complainant. His reply to the amendment application and additional written statement is not taken on record. Hence, he has come up in revision. There is no need to issue notice to the other party. We are of the view that when amendment application is allowed by the Forum below by its order dated 10/06/2008, it is the duty of the Forum to permit the opposite party to file additional written statement contraverting the further averment made by amending the main complaint. Hence, we pass the following order:- Order: 1. Revision petition is allowed. 2. The Forum below is directed to permit the petitioner to filed its ad...

Phillips Electronics India Ltd., Kolkata Vs. Mr. Suresh Babu Devrukhka ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member There is delay of 14 days in filing the appeal. Delay is not deliberate or intentional. We are therefore inclined to condone the delay on payment of cost of Rs.1000/- to be paid to the respondent. Aggrieved by the judgement dated 27/6/2008 passed by Central Mumbai District Consumer Forum, whereby Forum below allowed the complaint and directed O.P.no.3 to pay Rs.23,990/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 11/9/2004 to the complainant. Forum below further directed O.P.no.3 to pay Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost of the complaint. Brief case of the complainant was that he had purchased one Phillips Music System FW D596 on 11/9/2004 and the complainant paid Rs.23,990/- to the O.P.no.1. According to complainant on the very next day, Woofer of the music system was not working. Complainant brought this fact to the notice of the O.P. and O.P. replaced the whole music system. It is alleged by the complainant that even after replacing ...

Yashodip Co-op. Society and Another Vs. Kum Amruta Rajaram Patil and A ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Adv. Shri D.N. Gondhali for the appellant along with Shri Sopan Khashaba Bhandare and Prakash Vyankatrao Jadhav, who are office bearers of the society. Shri Rajaram Patil, father of the respondent is also present in person. Both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled the disputed out of the court. Hence, the appellants does not want to prosecute with the appeal. As such, we pass the following order:- Order: 1. Appeal stands withdrawn as not pressed. 2. The amount of Rs. 1 lakh deposited with the Forum below by the appellants be refunded back to the appellants i.e Rs.50,000/- to Shri Sopan Khashaba Bhandare and Rs.50,000/- Prakash Vyankatrao Jadhav. 3. Misc. Application No.1878/2007 stands disposed of. 4. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 5. Declared in open court. 6. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties....

Mr. Rajesh Kantilal Bhandari and Another Vs. Paranjape Schemes (Constr ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by Additional District Consumer Forum, Pune in Consumer Complaint No.31/2007 whereby, while allowing the complaint partly, O.P.No.1 has been directed to pay Rs.45,000/- to the complainants towards lesser area within eight weeks or to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum beyond eight weeks, the original complainant have filed this appeal for seeking enhanced compensation and other reliefs not granted by the Forum below. 2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under : 3) Complainant Shri Rajiv Bhandari and Shri Tejkumar Bhandari filed consumer complaint against O.P.No.1/ Paranjape Schemes(Construction) Private Limited, Pune and against O.P.No.2 Vijay Vasudev Vaidya/the owner of the land. According to the complainants, O.P.No.2 landlord of city Survey No.205, Shaniwar Peth, Pune had granted development rights to O.P.No.1 M/s.Paranjape Schemes (Constructio...

Smt.Shashikala Rajendra Pai Vs. Gyel Nash Rodrigues, District-thane an ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by District Consumer Forum, Raigad at Alibag in Consumer Complaints No.119/2003 to 124/2003 decided by common judgment on 11/12/2006 whereby, while allowing the complaints partly, the O.P. has been directed to make good the deficiencies in all the flats at her expenses as mentioned in issue no.2 as per report of Court Commissioner and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- and cost of Rs.2,000/- to each of the complainants the Org.O.P./Smt.Shashikala Pai has filed these five appeals challenging the said common judgment and award. 2) In filing of these appeals there is a delay of 34 days. Hence, she filed condonation of delay application. In the said application separately filed in five appeals, averments are the same. She pleaded that order dated 11/12/2005 was served upon her at residential address at Shivaji Park, Mumbai on 12/1/2007. In fact this is th...

Ramdas Shivram Sattur Vs. Rameshchandra @ Ramchandra Popatlal Shah and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR705; 2009(111)BomLR1578; 2009(4)MhLj551

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. One Smt. Tarabai is the original defendant No. 1. Her husband by name Shivram had purchased a plot of land in his own name bearing Plot No. 7 admeasuring 5610 square feet from Nav Rajasthan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (original defendant No. 2). During his life time, Shivram nominated Tarabai as his nominee and the said nomination was pursuant to Section 30 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act r/w Rule 25 of the Rules framed thereunder. Shivram and Tarabai had four children viz. the present appellant by name Ramdas, Krishnadas, Vitthaldas and Sau.Sangita. Ramdas was original defendant No. 3 whereas Krishnadas, Vitthaldas and Sau.Sangita were the defendant Nos. 4, 5 and 6. After the death of Shivram, Tarabai entered into an agreement of sale with the original plaintiff by name Rameshchandra @ Ramchandra Popatlal Shah. The agreement is purported to have been executed on 11.08.1980. Under the agreement of sale, the suit property viz. the plot of land was ...