Mumbai Court May 2009 Judgments

Dipti Dipak Kolapkar and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. the Maharashtra Public Ser ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR59; 2009(111)BomLR2131

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Principally a common ground of challenge raised by the Petitioners, in all these Writ Petitions, is whether Maharashtra Public Service Commission ( hereinafter referred to as 'Commission' ) could introduce the element of minimum marks to be obtained in the written examination as qualifying marks for being called for vivavoce test subsequent to issuance of advertisement issued by the said Commission for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division, and Judicial Magistrate, First Class. According to the Petitioners, the Commission adopted a criteria different than the one advertised and the Rules of the examination were changed midway. Thus, they pray for quashing and setting aside the entire selection process of the said examination which was conducted in furtherance to the advertisement dated 4th July, 2007 and also pray for issuance of other directions. To substantiate their reliefs claimed, the Petitioners also rely upon the principles of reasonable expectancy and...

Kanwardeepsingh Harbansingh Bedi Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010CriLJ315

B.H. Marlapalle,J.1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arises from the order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 79 of 1986 on 15/1/1988 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - Sessions Court, Mumbai, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 381 of I.P.C. for causing the murder of two of his colleagues i.e. Omprakash Dubey - Midshipman and Hanumansingh Rathod - Seaman on 24/11/1985 at about 11.30 a.m. while on board INS Ranjit. He has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 and RI for five years for the offence punishable under Section 381 of I.P.C. The appellant was on bail during trial and he continued to be on bail during the pendency of this appeal as well. Thus, during the last more than 24 years he has been on bail and this appeal for some or the other reasons remained pending before this Court for more than 21 yea...

Ravinder Singh Ahluwalia of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant Vs. Kuljinder Sin ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR84

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. The petitioner, who is a partner of a firm called 'M/s. Muktanandan Corporation' (for short, the firm), after dissolving it by a notice 16.04.2009, has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) and seeking various interim measures/protection against the respondents.3. A Registered Partnership Deed dated 17th September, 1975 entered into between one Rajinder Singh (husband of respondent No. 2 and father of respondents 3 to 5) and late Smt. Gurdev Kaur (mother of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 and Mr. Rajinder Singh) and thereby constituted the firm. Rajinder and Gurdev (now both deceased) had equal share in the profits, losses, assets and liabilities of the firm. The partnership was at Will.4. As averred, the firm had purchased or acquired out of the funds 33,24,400 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each of one Mukat Pipes Limited (the Company), during the period 1991-2001 in the name of t...

Lok Holdings and Constructions Ltd. Vs. Housing Development and Improv ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR23

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) as there is an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties. There is no dispute so far as this part is concerned. The petitioner, by invoking arbitration clause, suggested the name of an Arbitrator for the Arbitral Tribunal. The respondents have agreed and consented for the same.2. Pursuance to various discussion and negotiation between respondent No. 1 and the petitioner, they entered into an Agreement dated 12.08.2005 by which respondent No. 1 agreed to purchase and petitioner agreed to sell , convey, transfer all the petitioner's right, title and interest in the property to respondent No. 1 for total consideration of Rs. 54 crores (Rupees fifty four crores).3. There is no dispute on record that the total consideration of Rs. 54 crores as per the agreement have been paid to the petitioner, as per clause 2 of the agreement.4. The basic controversy in...

Kedarnath Construction Co. Through Its Proprietor, Gopalsingh Deora Vs ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR14

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the decision of Mumbai Municipal Corporation in awarding a contract to Respondent No. 5 pursuant to a tender issued for work of the Desilting of Major Nalla in Eastern Suburbs, Catchments Area No. 310 in `N' ward for the year 2009-11.The Petitioner further prays for a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to consider his bid for the aforesaid work as, according to him, he is eligible being the lowest bidder for the said work.2. The Petitioner is a sole Proprietor of the Proprietary concern, details of which are set out in the cause title of the Petition. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the officers of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and are concerned with awarding the subject contract. Respondent No. 5 is a successful party who has been awarded the contract.3. It is stated that Respondent No. 5 is duly served but none appears on his behalf. We, therefor...

Petron Engineering Construction Ltd. Vs. Cit and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Bom)380; [2009]318ITR388(Bom); [2010]187TAXMAN212(Bom)

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The petitioner had, with prior permission dated 3-5-1991 from the Reserve Bank of India, entered into a contract with M/s Gulf Import & Export Co., Dubai for providing services for erection and commissioning of a plant of pulses, barley and soya micronizing with all related service equipments. As per the said terms, the contract period was to be from 17-1-1991 to 16-1-1992. As per the provisions of Section 80HHB(3)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, as in force at that time, the petitioner was required to bring back 50 per cent of profits and gains in convertible foreign exchange into India within period of six months from the end of the previous year i.e., the financial year to take benefit of deduction from the income for computation of income-tax. As per this order and the provisions of law, earnings in foreign exchange were to be brought back on or before 30-9-1992. The petitioner filed returns for the assessment year 1992-93 on 29-1-1993. Thereafter, by letters dated 2-...

Sabic Innovative Plastics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Depsang Corporation and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR243

Sayed A.A., J.1. The above summons for judgment is taken out by the plaintiff praying that a judgment be entered in the above summary suit against the defendants jointly and severally for Rs. 1,07,23,282/- together with interest @ 21% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs. 93,00,000/- from 18th December, 2007, till payment and realization. According to the plaintiff, the defendants have no defence and have entered an appearance to be filed only with a view to defeat and deny their claim.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No. 1- firm had approached them to buy on High Seas basis 75,000 Kg. of Laxan Polycarbonate OQ1025/112 at an agreed price of Rs. 93 lacs exclusive of custom duty and other charges. The defendant No. 1 was to take direct delivery of the said goods on the basis of documents to be handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 simultaneously upon defendant No. 1 handing over 75 days advance Letters of Credit (LC) payment to them which payment was agreed to ...

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Bandra-kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai Vs. Bajaj All ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Ms. Bhakti Barve, Advocate for the complainant. Complaint is taken out of sine-die list on the request of the complainant. It is submitted by Advocate Ms. Barve for the complainant that O.P. is given notice of the fact that she is moving an application for withdrawal of the complaint for today. Withdrawal Pursis is taken on record. Order: 1. Complaint stands dismissed for want of prosecution. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Shri Suresh P. Borkar Vs. Smt. Mangala Parab

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal arises out of order/award dated 30/01/2009 passed in consumer complaint No.274/2008 Shri Suresh P. Borkar V/s. Smt.Mangala Parab by District Consumer Forum Thane (Forum below in short). Consumer complaint filed by appellant/complainant-Shri Suresh Borkar stood partly allowed, but not satisfied with it, this appeal is preferred by him. Undisputed fact is that services of the complainant were taken by respondent/O.P. for transport of their students. There is a dispute about non-payment of dues thereof. Therefore, consumer complaint is filed. O.P. denied the claim of the complainant. Notice is waived by respondent. Admit. We heard appellant Shri Suresh Borkar in person as well as Smt.Mangala Parab, respondent in person. In the instant case, services of the appellant were taken by O.P./School to transport their students from their respective homes to the school. If there is any dispute about recovery of hiring...

Shri Mallinath Ramchandra Mhamane, Solapur Vs. the Manager, Icici Bank ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal is directed against the order/award dated 19/11/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.181/2008 Shri Mallinath Ramchandra Mhamane V/s. ICICI Bank Home Finance Company Ltd. by District Consumer Forum Solapur (Forum below in short). Appellant/complainant had taken a housing loan of Rs.3 Lakhs from Global Housing Finance Co. Ltd. (in short GHFCL) as per agreement dated 24/08/2001. He had paid some E.M.Is. as agreed. Thereafter, GHFCL was merged with respondent/O.P.-ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. Supplementary Agreement dated 22/08/2003 was accordingly executed by the appellant in favour O.P. Thereafter, dispute arose regarding terms of said supplementary agreement and about foreclosure of the loan account. A consumer complaint was accordingly filed on 27/06/2008. Consumer complaint was resisted by the O.P. on the ground of limitation and also denied that there is any deficiency on their part as alleged. They als...