Mumbai Court April 2009 Judgments

Zoroastrian Anjuman Funds Trust and ors. Vs. Chimanaji Jayaram Mali (D ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR50

Borkar P.R., J.1. By this Writ Petition the petitioner/trust challenges the judgment and order passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and Tahsildar, Dhule in Tenancy Case No. 3 of 1986 decided on 19.4.1986; as modified by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhule Division, Dhule in Tenancy Appeal No. 10 of 1986 decided on 3.7.1987; as confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Bombay in Tenancy A. No. 173 of 1987 decided on 6.4.1990 holding that the respondent/tenant Chimnaji was entitled to purchase land Survey No. 12/2, situated at Dhule for the purchase price of Rs. 27,465.60 ps. under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.2. As per the petitioner/trust, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal failed to appreciate Section 43C along with its proviso under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. It is stated that due to misinterpretation, the three authorities have held that original...

Dilip Laxman Girme Vs. Bharat Prabhakar Pise and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR1

Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The present writ petition is against the interlocutory order dated 6.8.2008 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in the pending Election Petition No. PUNE/6/2007, whereby accepting the preliminary objection regarding the nonjoinder of necessary parties as raised by the petitioner (original respondent No. 1) is upheld. However, to meet ends of justice directed to join all the returned candidates from the six gats of the Karkhana as party respondent and also the Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Shivnagar as a party respondent to the present petition.2. Respondents 1 and 2 have challenged the election petition under Section 144T of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act'). The petitioner is elected from one Gat No. 6 out of six gats. The constituency from which the petitioner was elected consisted of 17 other Directors. Respondents, however, made party to all six candidates who had contested the elect...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Mishrilal Bansilal Jain

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR32

Tated K.K., J.1. Heard Mr. Dound, learned A.G.P. for the appellant and Mr. Chewale, learned Counsel for respondent.2. The issue involved in the present first appeal is that, whether claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land on the basis of two sale deeds produced by him on record. One more issue is about fixing the market value of Bagayat land on the basis of valuation of Jirayat land.3. The present appeal preferred by original respondent-State of Maharashtra against the judgment and award dated 30th March, 2000 passed by IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in L.A.R. No. 1432 of 1998.4. In the present case the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'S.L.A.O.') issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 9th June, 1988 for acquiring respondent's/original claimant's land from village Vitner, Taluka and District-Jalgaon admeasuring 4 Hectors and 87 Rs and 9 Rs Potkharaba land from Gut No. 341/1 for percolation tan...

Zilla Parishad and anr. Vs. Prakash Nagorao thete and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR13; 2009(4)MhLj628

Bhatia J.H., J.1. To state in brief, respondent No. 1 had filed the Complaint (ULP) No. 68 of 1992 before the Labour Court, Chandrapur alleging unfair labour practice on the part of the present petitioners under Section 28 r/w Item No. 1(b), (d) and (f) to Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act and claimed reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages. He contended that he was initially appointed as helper in the Mechanical Section, Irrigation Division of Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli on daily wages as per the order dated 2/9/1983 passed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Z.P. At that time, he was paid wages at the rate of Rs. 13.90 Ps. per day. The wages were paid for the work done as unskilled heavy rate. According to him, even though an order dated 28.5.87/1.6.87 was issued, terminating his services w.e.f. 31/5/1987, he was not relieved from his duties and he continued to work on the same post till 20/9/1989 when he was not allowed to perform his duties and by oral order ...

Renuka Thavru Chavhan Vs. Additional Commissioner and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR44

Donoaonkar S.R., J.1. Heard Shri A.S. Mardikar, Advocate for petitioner, Shri A.S. Sonare, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 to 9. Respondent No. 3, served, but absent.Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.2. Petitioner, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking to challenge the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati dated 15.1.2008 in Appeal No. 22/BVP Act 35(3)(c)/2008-2009 of Kohala, Tahsil Darvha, District Yavatmal. In an appeal under Section 35(3)(c) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, which was preferred to challenge the order passed by the Additional Collector, Yavatmal in Gram Panchayat Case No. 16/69/08-09 Mouja Kohla, Tahsil Darvha, District : Yavatmal, dated 11.11.2008.3. Brief facts leading to this petition can be stated thus. The petitioner is ...

Smt. Durgadevi Vs. Shalikram Vitthalrao Korde and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ2186; 2009(4)MhLj386

R.C. Chavan, J.1. These applications, by complainants in complaints for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, seeking leave to file appeal against judgments of acquittal rendered by Judicial Magistrates First Class in Criminal Case Nos. 833 of 2005 (new) 1988/2004(old) and 3321/2007 raise a common question and are, therefore, taken up for disposal by a common judgment.2. Criminal Case No. 1988/2004 i.e. New No. 833/2005 had been filed by the payee through holder of her power of attorney one Kamalkishore, whereas Criminal Case No. 3321/2007 had been filed by Sk. Salam who was grandson and holder of power of attorney of Halimabee payee of the cheque.3. The holders of Power of Attorney in both the cases tendered evidence on behalf of the complainants. After considering the evidence tendered, in light of judgment of learned single Judge of this Court in Roy Joseph v. Sk. Tamisuddin reported at : 2008(2)BomCR242 , the learned Magistrates proceeded to acquit...

Devi Packaging Industries and Etc. Vs. Bazargaon Paper and Pulp Mills ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ3207; 2009(4)MhLj390

ORDERR.C. Chavan, J.1. These two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure raise a common question relating to tenability of a complaint filed after the prescribed period of limitation, by presenting the cheque again after first dishonour, in respect of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The applicants in both these cases are accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur in Criminal Complaint Nos. 2337 and 2339 of 2005. Criminal Complaint bearing No. 2337 of 2005 was filed in respect of cheque Nos. 272309, 274088 and 274086 issued by the applicant in favour of the complainant. Criminal Complaint No. 2339 of 2005 is in respect of Cheque No. 279014 likewise issued by the applicant in favour of the original complainant. In the complaints filed, the cheques were shown to have been presented by the complainant on 5-8-2005 and 6-8-2005. They were dishonoured and an intimation of dishonour was received by the c...

Prashant Chandrashekhar Gundawar and ors. Vs. Municipal Council and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2009Bom144

Rule.Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.2.By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhadrawati in R.C.S. No.1/1998, below Exh.156, an application preferred by the petitioners for adducing the evidence of a witness on affidavit sworn before the notary.3. Impugned order reads thus -"ORDER PASSED BELOW EXHIBIT 156.Perused the affidavit annexed herewith. It is sworn by one Manohar Narayan Pranjale before a Notary.As per Order 18 Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code the evidence affidavit of witness is to be sworn before Court machinery. If there would have been any other option to do so, legislature would have mentioned the same in the said provision.The Hon'ble High Court has directed on I5-7-2008 to dispose of the matter within six months. The parties were asked to co-operate the Court and it goes to mean that parties should not seek adjour...

Mr. P. Sivasankaran Vs. Shri Sathish Waman Patkar

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member 1. There is delay of one year and one month in filing the appeal. Therefore misc. application no.693/2008 is filed for condonation of delay. The reasons given in para 3 of the application are satisfactory. Delay is not deliberate or intentional. We are therefore inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, misc. application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay is condoned. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/original complainant against the dismissal order dated 23/11/2006 passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum in consumer complaint no.413/2004. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:- 3. Complainant booked the flat admeasuring 650 sq.ft. with O.P. O.P. agreed to hand over possession to the complainant on 4/1/2003. According to complainant he paid Rs.4,65,000/- as follows:- 1st installment Rs.1,80,000/- on 15/11/2002 2nd installment Rs.1,35,070/- + Rs.59,930/- stamp duty on 24/12/2002. 3rd installment Rs.9...

Silver Park ‘a’ Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Distri ...

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 the District Consumer Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No.449/2007 decided on 23/1/2007, the original O.P.No.1 has filed this appeal challenging the award passed by the Forum below in favour of the complainant. 2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- 3) Complainant Mrs.Surekha Y.Gaikwad, R/o Silver Park A Co-operative Housing Society Limited of Mira Road (East), District Thane filed consumer complaint since the complainant had some grievance against the said society. According to the complainant, enquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer Shri S.L.Tandlekar at the direction of Mr.V.D.Gawade, the then Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies of Shivaji Road, Thane. The complainant pleaded that she is a member of registered society of O.P.No.1 and since she is paying monthly society bills, she is a consumer U/s 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection A...