Mumbai Court April 2009 Judgments

M/S. Hind Shipping Agencies, Mumbai Vs. M/S. Shivam Udyog, Jalgaon and ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar Honble Presiding Judicial Member The appellant and respondent have arrived at the Consent Terms before Lok Adalat held on 17/04/2009 and have compromised the matter in presence of panel members. They have executed proforma as well as consent terms before the members of Lok Adalat. Adv.Sumnani for appellant gave cheque bearing no. 663774 dated 20/04/2009 of Standard Chartered Bank in favour of M/s. Shivam Udyog to Adv.Smt.Divedi h/f respondent. Consent terms shall be binding on both the parties and in case of default committed by either party, other party shall be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission to execute the said consent terms as if it is a decree passed by this Commission. As such, we pass following order:- Order: 1. Appeal stands disposed of in terms of consent terms. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties....

Mahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd. Under the Companies Act, 1956 Vs. t ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR587; 2009(111)BomLR2048

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Simple but pertinent questions of law arise for consideration in this Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' ). On behalf of the Applicant, it is contended that the parties had not appointed any Arbitrator and Shri Rozal Mehta, Respondent No. 2 who had acted as a Conciliator and resultantly acquired disqualification for being nominated as an Arbitrator. Thus Respondent No. 2 cannot be appointed as an Arbitrator in terms of Section 11(8)(b) of the Act. The Applicant, thus, prays for an appointment of an independent Arbitrator.2. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 1 objects to the very maintainability of the present Petition, as it contends that Respondent No. 2 was appointed and had acted as an Arbitrator thus the mandate of an Arbitrator could be revoked or substituted only upon a petition being filed satisfying the grounds and reasons stated in Section 12(15) of the Act and such a Petiti...

Rajesh A. Behere and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (at the Instance of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1922

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 Basappa Uttapa Bandiwadar lodged a First Information Report (FIR) (Exh.22) with Turbhe Police Station and his statement spells out the prosecution case which the prosecution has attempted to prove to bring home the guilt of all the accused. It was stated by this witness that he was residing with his Aunt prior to the date of occurrence and in fact since 1996 and was working as a Cleaner of any vehicle. Tanaji Maruti Pawar, the deceased was known to him, who used to do some construction contract work. He also knew the accused. He knew their names prior to the incident. On 24th January 1999, the date of occurrence, which was a Sunday and he had a holiday. During the day he was at home, then went out at about 6.00 p.m. He returned to Indira Nagar at 11.00 p.m. and took meals at Somaya hotel. While he was washing his hands after taking his meals at about 11.05 p.m., Suresh Chavan, the accused, came there and asked him as to wh...

The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Water Resources Departm ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR673; 2009(111)BomLR1989; 2009(4)MhLj163

Ranjana Desai, J.1. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, has challenged in this writ petition judgment and order dated 26/9/08 delivered by The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ('MAT' for short) in Original Application No. 324 of 2008.2. The 1st respondent holds B.E. (Civil) degree. In 1976 he joined as Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State Government. He was recruited directly through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission as Asstt. Executive Engineer Class I in 1982. In due course he was promoted as Chief Engineer. He worked as Chief Engineer Water Resources Development Centre, Aurangabad. In November, 2006 he was transferred as Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Local Sector, Pune. He was working in that post from 4/11/06. Even though he had not completed his normal tenure of three years, he was transferred as Chief Engineer M.M.R.D.A, Mumbai by order dated 10/1/08. By the same order respondent 2, who was ...

Vithabai Bama Bhandari Indian Inhabitant Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR663; 2009(111)BomLR2093; 2009(4)MhLj693

V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioner, in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is seeking following declaration;That it be declared that all proceedings/notifications and notices issued under Section 9 and 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in respect of the land situated at bearing survey No. 34/6 Koliwali, Taluka Kalyan District Thane admeasuring 2008.00 sq.mtrs. stand abated in view of Section 4 of the Urban Land Ceiling (Repeal) Act, 1999 and the respondents are now not entitled to resort to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 in respect of the petitioners land;FACTUAL BACKDROPS:In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, few relevant introductory facts needs to be noticed at the outset.2. Petitioner herein is a holder of land admeasuring 16490 sq.mtrs. under Plot bearing No. 33, 34(6) and 35/15 at village Koliwali, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane.3. On 3rd October, 1983, the Deputy Collector & Co...

Dr. Somashekhar Ashok Guravannavar Vs. the Directorate General of Heal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2221; 2009(6)MhLj301

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Service, New Delhi, published a prospectus for admission to All India Post Graduate Entrance Examination for M.D./ M.S. or Diploma in M.D./M.S./Diploma and MDS Courses for the year 2009. Section 11 of the All India Entrance Examination for admission to Post Graduate Medical (MD)/ MS/ Diploma and Dental (MDS) Courses, 2009 relates to allotment of seats by personal appearance (Counseling). Section 11(i) thereof provides that Counselling would be by personal appearance in two rounds. It reads as under: ' 11(i) there shall be two rounds of allotment by personal appearances:(a) first round of allotment from 22/2/2009 to 16/03/2009 covering ranks from 1 to last rank of merit list (please see AppendixV for schedule of 1st round of allotment by personal appearance); and(b) second round of allotment is likely to be held from 22/04/2009 onwards.(c) In the second round of allotment the candidate...

Shiv Adhar Yadav, Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Government ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR657; 2009(111)BomLR1978

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') empowers the Central Government to issue a notification in relation to maximum gross weight of a vehicle, its registration with reference to the size, number, nature and size of tyres attached to the wheels of the vehicles and to issue registration certificate with regard to a transport vehicles other than a motor cab. Section 59 of the Act further empowers Central Government having regard to the public safety, convenience and objects of the Act, by notification in the Official Gazette to specify life of motor vehicle reckoned from the date of its manufacture, after expiry of which the motor vehicle shall not be deemed to comply with the requirements of the Act. The Central Government is further empowered to issue different ages for different classes of vehicles. Sub-section (3) of Section 59 of the Act opens with a nonobstante clause and makes it mandatory that no prescribed authority ...

Shubhada Prabhakar Patil, Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Secreta ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR641; 2009(111)BomLR2074; 2009(4)MhLj788

D.Y. Chandrachud , J.1. Rule, 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 Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The three Petitioners before the Court - Shubhada Patil, Sharda Gadhari and Kshama Naik - were appointed as Shikshan Sevaks in the V.N. Sule Guruji English Medium School conducted by the Indian Education Society. The management is the Third Respondent while the School is impleaded through its Headmistress as the Fourth Respondent. The appointments were made during the academic year 200607.The qualifications, dates of appointment and the category to which the Petitioners belong are tabulated herein below for convenience of reference:S.No. Name of Sevak Qualifi- Date of Categorythe cation AppointmentShikshan1 Smt. Shubhada Patil H.S.C. D.Ed. 13/06/06 O.B.C.2 Smt. Sharda Gadhavi H.S.C. D.Ed. 04/09/06 N.T.3 Smt. Kshama Naik H.S.C...

Priyanka Omprakash Panwar Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Its Pri ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR631; 2009(111)BomLR2231; 2009(4)MhLj847

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Review has been sought of the judgment delivered by this Court on 19th December 2007. A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court in order to impugn the correctness of the judgment. On 3rd November 2008, the following order was passed by the Supreme Court:Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition as he would like to move the High Court. Permission is granted. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.'2. The claim of the Petitioner to belong to the Khatik community, which is a Scheduled Caste, was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee was impugned in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. The Petition was dismissed by the Division Bench on 7th March 2005 holding that there was no error of law apparent on the face of the record in so far as the finding of the Scrutiny Committee was concerned. However, in pursuance of the lib...

Partha Ghosh (Chartered Accountant of Mumbai Inhabitant) and D.V.P. Ra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR610; 2009(111)BomLR1874

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Heard. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard Senior Counsel for both sides.2. Both the Petitioners, in this Writ Petition, are Chartered Accountants by profession and are members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India set up under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Petitioner No. 1 is a Chartered Accountant since 1992 and a partner of M/s. Price Waterhouse & Co., a firm of Chartered Accountants, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Firm') while Petitioner No. 2 is a Chartered Accountant since 1972 and Senior Manager of the said Firm. This Firm was the statutory auditors of one Global Trust Bank Limited ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') for the year ended 31st March, 2003. The Petitioners, in their capacity as a partner and Senior Manager of the Firm, respectively, had conducted the statutory audit and signed the qualified audit report on 30th September, 2003 o...