Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR3129
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. All these petitions can be disposed of by this common order in view of the fact that basic clauses/agreements between the parties are same and identical.2. Arbitration Petition No. 409/2009 is not on board, but upon mentioning of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the same is taken on board as the issues involved are the same and identical with other petitions.3. The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) and prayed for an interim measures/injunction restraining the respondents from disposing of, selling, alienating, transferring or creating any third party right, interest in respect of immovable properties as described.4. The basic terms and conditions of the Personal Loan Agreement in questions are as under:14.6 Governing Law and Jurisdiction These Terms and conditions shall be construed and governed in all respects, including validity, interpretation and effect in accordance with the laws of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Per Mrs. S.P. Lale, Honble Member This appeal is filed by appellant/org. complainant against the dismissal order dated 11/06/2007 passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum in consumer complaint No.317/2006. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:- The complainants husband had purchased a car Santro model bearing No.MH-04 AX 5919 from O.P.No.1 in the month of July 2000 which is manufactured by O.P.No.2. The said car was affected by the flood in Mumbai on 26/07/2005 and developed starting problem. On 20/08/2005 complainant sent said car for repairs in the workshop of O.P.No.1. But, O.P.No.1 failed to repair the car within a reasonable time. It took nearly four months for the same. Due to not attending the repair work immediately, components of the car became more unserviceable/damaged. It increased the cost of repairs and replacement of damaged parts too. The complainant received bill dated 16/12/2005 amounting to Rs.90,967/- towards the repairs. Complainant further st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member None Present For The Appellant. We Have Carefully Gone Through The Impugned Order/Award Dated 30/09/2008 Passed By Central Mumbai District Consumer Forum. The Complaint Stood Dismissed By A Reasoned Order. We Are In Agreement With It And Hence The Order:- Order: 1. Appeal Stands Dismissed In Limine. 2. No Order As To Costs. 3. Copies Of The Order Be Furnished To The Parties....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(6)BomCR176
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This Judgment would govern three chamber summons; one taken out by the decree holder and the other two by the judgment debtor. Since all the three chamber summons arise out of an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the execution proceedings initiated consequent upon the award having attained finality, arguments have been heard together in all the three cases by consent.2. Disputes and differences between the decree holder and the judgment debtor came to be referred to arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitral award was made on 7th July, 2005 and in the operative part of the award, the sole arbitrator issued the following directions:1. The cases where 100% payment has already been made are not to be reopened.2. The cases where recovery has been resorted to based on surprise checks will be not opened.3. The cases where 60% payment or no payment has been made, complete payment should ...
Tag this Judgment!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 30/11/2007 passed in consumer complaint No.13/2007 Dr.Dilip Damodar Rasal and Anr. V/s. The Manager, SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. by the District Consumer Forum Nashik (Forum below in short). It was a consumer complaint filed by respondents/org. complainants alleging that appellant No.2/org. O.P. was guilty of deficiency in service as much as fixed deposit of Rs.5 Lakhs which was kept for 60 months, was not refunded on demand. Complaint was allowed. It was an ex-parte proceeding. Thereafter, execution proceedings were taken. On receipt of notice of demand from the Revenue Official, for the first time as alleged by the appellants, they came to know about the impugned award some time in the month of July 2008. Thereafter, they have obtained a certified copy which was received on 03/10/2008 and then this appeal was filed on 14/10/2008. There is no separate application for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member None present for the appellant. We have perused the record. In the instant case, claim based upon alleged loss due to delayed processing is devoid of any substance since rate applicable is a date of lodgement of SOS/Certificate of any purchase option, if the lodgement is made prior to 2 p.m. and if the lodgement is made after 2 p.m. next date rate is applicable. The Learned Forum below has rightly considered all these aspects. No doubt the complainant was in urgent need to encash the certificate, but that itself will not give any ground for compensation on the ground of deficiency in service and that too lodging a consumer complaint. We are in agreement with the Forum below and the reasons recorded by them. Hence, the order:- Order: 1. Appeal stands dismissed in limine. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR2880; (2009)226CTR(Bom)454
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The revenue is in appeal, challenging order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (ITAT) Panaji Bench dated 1.10.2001 holding that under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act the Assessing Officer could not have levied interest under Section 234C in the mode and manner as in dispute between the parties before us. The ITAT observed that it could have been done in the same manner as computed by the assessee himself while working out tax or interest payable on self assessment under Section 140A 2. The assessment year concerned is 1996-1997 and the respondent assessee filed a return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,83,78,520/-. In intimation under Section 143(1)(a), the Assessing Officer on 5.6.1997 levied interest under Section 234C amounting to Rs. 9,98,652/-. The assessee sought rectification and moved an application under Section 154 of the Act which came to be rejected and it was challenged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CITA) by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(6)BomCR234; (2009)IVLLJ825Bom
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated 28th August, 1999 passed by the appointing authority by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the services of the respondent Bank. The petitioner had further carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority against the said dismissal order. The Appellate Authority dismissed the said appeal by its order dated 17th April, 2001. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent Bank as a Probationary Officer on 6th September, 1965. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Assistant General Manager in the respondent Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was required to supervise 33 Bank branches, which included VashiTurbhe Branch and Ambarnath Branch. The petitioner was served with a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. There is delay of 16 months in filing this revision petition. Therefore misc.application for condonation of delay is filed. In fact no revision would lie for the reasons stated herein after and as such there arise no question to condone delay in filing the revision application. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order allowed passed on 27/6/2007 on application of the complainant of the even date in consumer complaint no.374/2005 Dr.Prakash Gangaram Kajrolkar v/s. Chaudhari Yatra Co.Pvt.Ltd. and another by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum. 3. Opponent nos.1and2 remained absent though served. Proof of service i.e.RPAD acknowledgement of opponent-original O.P.no.2 and under certificate of posting of both the opponents, are taken on record. 4. Heard Ms.Sunanda Barve-Advocate for the revisionist. Perused the record. 5. In the instant case, after accepting written statement subject to cost filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2009]94SCL35(Bom)
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Petition is moved by Reliance-Industries Ltd. to obtain sanction to the scheme of Amalgamation of Reliance Petroleum Ltd. (Transferor company) with Reliance Industries Limited (Transferee Company). The Transferor Company is 75 per cent subsidiary of the Transferee Company.2. The Petitioner Company was incorporated as Mynylon Limited sometime on 8-5-1973 in the State of Karnataka under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. That name was subsequently changed to Reliance Textile Industries Limited on 11-3-1977. Later on, the place of registered office of the Petitioner company was changed from State of Karnataka to State of Maharashtra on 2-7-1977. Thereafter, the name of the Petitioner Company was changed to Reliance Industries Limited on 27-6-1985. The shares of the Petitioner Company are listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange of India.3.The Petitioner Company has been established to carry on business set out in the Memorandum of ...
Tag this Judgment!