Mumbai Court April 2009 Judgments

Pandharinath S/O. Vithalrao Awari Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR601; 2009(111)BomLR1966; 2009(4)MhLj381

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition seeks to have the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, on 25-5-1993 in Revision No. 6/60-A(6)/89-90 of Dhamangaon quashed and set aside and a further direction to the authorities to take surplus land from the holding of respondent No. 5 Gangadhar Raghoba Bhoyar from whom the petitioner had purchased the land.2. The Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short, .the Ceiling Act.) came into force on 2-10-1975. The petitioner purchased 11.25 acres of land from survey No. 55 from respondent No. 5 on 26-7-1979. Thus the land had to be included under Section 10 of the Ceiling Act for computing the total holding of land holder respondent No. 5. On 8-6-1987, the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal determined that 18.81 acres of land was surplus and also possibly held that the land was delimited from survey No. 55. The landlord had challenged the computation of total holding and the surplus land before ...

The Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Vs. Continental F ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR694

ORDERRoshan Dalvi, J.1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by Defendant No. 2 for having the Suit dismissed against Defendant No. 2 or to delete the name of Defendant No. 2 from the record of this Suit. The Suit is filed by the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT). It is filed against Defendant No. 1 who is stated to be the owner/consignee of the consignment in Suit and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who are the shipping agents through whom the consignment was brought in containers and stored in the Plaintiff's premises.2. Paragraph 3 of the Plaint shows that upon the goods landing in the Port and unloading its cargo, which is brought into the custody of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is entitled to charge and levy the ground rent and other charges for the storage whilst the goods remained in the premises of the Plaintiff. The owners or its agents are required to remove / clear the goods. Until they are cleared / removed, the charges are paid to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has sought to recover s...

Molly Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]181TAXMAN66(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. By an order under Section 226(3)(vi) and Section 226(3)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the Tax Recovery Officer 16(1) held that the petitioners and M/s. Subhash Arora Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. owed a debt to Shri Amit Jhaveri and in view of that held that the money attached from the bank account of M/s. Molly Trading Co. (P.) Ltd., cannot be termed as wrong and hence the amount cannot be refunded.A notice was issued to the assessee-company on 18-7-2007 under Section 226(3) directing to pay a sum of Rs. 4,15,54,248 as due of Shri Amit Jhaveri on account of Income-tax. A similar notice was issued to HDFC Bank directing the bank to pay the amount due and/or held by them on account of M/s. Molly Trading Co. (P.) Ltd., the petitioner. Accordingly HDFC had sent the sum of Rs. 4,35,459 being balance in the account of M/s. Molly Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. vide bank's letter dated 30-7-2007. On behalf of the assessee-company M/s. Jain Singhal & Associates by letter of 28-7-2007 had...

Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. /S.Rayon Infrastructure (Formerly Known as M/ ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Adv. Mrs. Shrivastava h/f Adv. Chitnis for the complainant. Complaint is returned to the complainant for filing it to the concerned District Forum after reducing the claim below Rs. 25lakhs within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. As such, we pass the following order:- Order: 1. Complaint be returned to the complainants for presentation in the appropriate District Consumer Forum. 2. Complainant is permitted to file the complaint within 4 weeks from today with the appropriate District Consumer Forum from the date of receipt of this order. 3. Filing fee is already paid by the complainant in this Commission. No fresh filing fee should be taken by the Forum below. 4. Complaint stands disposed of so far as this Commission is concerned. 5. Misc. Appl. No.142/2009 stands disposed of as infructuous. 6. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Scope Development Projects and Another Vs. Mr. Mani Balraman Gunder, M ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Shri B.B. Vagyani, Honble President Heard Mr.A.A.Kocharekar-Advocate for the appellant. There is inordinate delay of 226 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, application for condonation of delay is filed. Ld.Advocate has submitted that because of financial crisis, the appellant could not arrange for Rs.25,000/- to be deposited in the State Commission and therefore, appeal could not be filed in time. Inordinate delay is not at all satisfactorily explained. We are therefore not inclined to condone the delay. Prayer for condonation of delay therefore stands rejected. Misc.application no.2150/2008 for condonation of delay stands rejected. We also examined the correctness of the order in the light of material placed on record. Agreement for Sale in respect of plot was executed on 4/9/1995. Respondent paid entire consideration of Rs.1,29,160/- to the builder. Respondent also paid Rs.15,501/- to the builder for stamp duty and registration. Builder however failed to ...

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai Vs. Eknath Krishna Bhoir, D ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar,Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) This is an appeal filed by the Org. O.P./Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Panvel against the judgment and award passed by the District Consumer Forum, Alibag in Consumer Complaint No.33/2008 decided on 29/9/2008 whereby, while allowing the complaint, the Forum below directed insurance company to pay insurance claim of Rs.96,520/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of award till actual payment and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. 2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under : 3) Complainant Shri Eknath Bhoir is a resident of Navghar, Taluka-Uran, District Raigad. He was having Trailer bearing No.MH-06-K-7509. The said Trailer was taken to J.N.P.T. Port Yard. When the crane was lifting one of the two containers from the trailer, second container got tilted and there was accident to the trailer. Trailer there...

Mr. Suni Kisan Patil Vs. J.J. Hospital, Mumbai

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Applicant in person. None appeared for respondent/judgment debtor. We have issued notice under Section 25 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to the J.J.Hospital. There is no response. Hence, we direct issuance of Recovery Certificate to the Collector, Mumbai for recovering decreetal amount from the judgment debtor, which will be payable to decree holder herein. Hence, the following order:- Order: 1. E.A.No. 08/2007 stands disposed of. 2. Office to issue Recovery Certificate under Section 25 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to Collector, Mumbai and send the compliance report thereof. 3. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties....

Shri Ganesh Tukaram Ghosalkar Vs. Morepen Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Shri B.B. Vagyani, Honble President Heard Ms. Manisha Ghosalkar-A.R. for the appellant. None for respondent. Proof of service taken on record. Present appellant, who was a complainant in consumer complaint no.463/2005 filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban for refund of deposit amount. District Consumer Forum after having noticed the blanket stay order granted by High Court of Himachal Pradesh directed present depositor to approach Law Board. Correctness of this order is challenged by the depositor before us. We perused the reasons given in para 8 of the judgement. District Consumer Forum has clearly mentioned that High Court of Himachal Pradesh has stayed all the civil matters including consumer complaints. In view of blanket stay order granted by High Court of Himachal Pradesh, impugned order under challenge cannot be said to be bad in law. Order is perfectly legal and correct. No interference is required. We asked A.R. f...

Mr. K. Chandra Mohan Prop. M/S. Site Ads Vs. Punjab National Bank, Mum ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Shri B.B. Vagyani, Honble President None present for the appellant. Ms. Merlin Montero-Advocate for the respondent. This appeal is filed by the original complainant in consumer complaint no.385/1995. Complaint filed by the present appellant is dismissed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum. District Consumer Forum has concluded on the basis of material placed on record that there was no deficiency as such on the part of respondent bank and consequently complaint came to be dismissed. Client of present appellant had given two cheques drawn on Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ghatkopar. Both the cheques were deposited in the Punjab National Bank/respondent herein. Cheques were not honoured because of direction to stop payment. Appellant had made serious grievance about missing of cheques. However, District Consumer Forum relying upon the correspondence that took place between the parties has rightly concluded that cheques were in fact not mispla...

Shri Rajesh Kantilal Runwal and Others Vs. the President Jaysingpur Kr ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Shri B.B. Vagyani, Honble President Heard Mr.D.D.Magdum-Advocate for the appellants. Perused the common judgment dated 31/7/2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur. District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur dismissed the complaints. The Lease deed was executed in respect of open plots in the year 1992. Plots were not demarcated. Plots were demarcated in the year 2004. When notices were sent to the appellants in the matter of recovery of non agricultural cess, local fund and service tax, the consumer complaints are filed. Moreover, entries were not made in the Revenue record. This was the main grievance of the present appellants. Consumer complaints were however filed in the year 2006-2007. Appellants brought stale claim before the Consumer Court. They approached Consumer Forum after about 14 years. Moreover, dispute involved in the so called consumer complaints is not a consumer dispute. Dispute is with regard to immovable property. Dismissal order is therefo...