Mumbai Court June 2009 Judgments

Sanjeeva J. Shetty Vs. the Collector of Pune and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR352; 2009(6)MhLj873

1. Rule.2. Learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondents waives service of Rule.3. By consent, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith since the controversy is narrow in these cases.4. This group of petitions raise same question of law and facts and hence they are being disposed of at this stage by common order. Counter affidavits have been filed and we have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.5. The petitioners are all licence holders under the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules. We are taking one of the impugned order as sample passed in Writ Petition 3533 of 2009.6. The petitioner'slicence in that case was renewed from January, 2001 to the end of the year 2006. He had paid the licence fees of Rs. 3,65,400/-. It appears from the impugned order that the Auditor General, Mumbai, pointed out that he had found in his inspection that the licence fees charged was not adequate and had not been charged in accordance with the rules. There are two sets of rules. One set applies ...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rukhmabai Laxman Charde and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR132

Joshi A.H., J.1. In this long-argued appeal, limited question, which arises, is : In the background of admitted fact, namely in the accident occurred on 1st May, 1992, whether a person travelling in the goods vehicle accompanying the goods, for which he had paid the freight charges, is covered by the Insurance Policy?2. Facts of insurance and date of accident are admitted.3. The claimants' evidence about the deceased travelling with goods has gone unchallenged. The Insurance Company elected to remain away from the witness box.4. After the claim was allowed, now the Insurance Company is in appeal before this Court, and, based on settled law, namely that prior to the 1994 amendment, argues that insurance of passengers accompanying the goods was contingent upon payment of premium, and on the facts of the case, as no such payment was made, no liability was attracted.5. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.J. Pophaly with learned Advocate Mr. L.V. Limaye for the appellant, Mr. S.B. Bangde, Advocate...

Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Supriya ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ864Bom

A.S. Oka, J.1. Heard Shri Mehta, learned Counsel for the applicant in support of the Revision Application. None appears for the contesting respondents.2. The applicant filed a complaint against contesting respondents for the offence under Section 85(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') which is punishable under Section 85(i)(b) of the said Act. The allegation in the complaint against the respondents accused is that the respondents accused have failed to pay contribution as required by law and therefore, they have committed an offence and accordingly, the process was issued on the said complaint.3. During the pendency of the complaint, an application was made by the accused on the basis of decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India : AIR 1996 SC 1619 : (1996) 4 SCC 33 and Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India : AIR 1997 SC 1539 : (1996) 6 SCC 775. The contention rai...

Sandeep Manohar Desai, Shloka Missionaries, Goregaon(East), Mumbai and ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment since they arises out of same impugned order/award passed in consumer complaint no.497/2004, Sandeep Manohar Desai V/s. Shri Ram Shankar, General Manger, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Mumbai and Ors. by District Forum, Mumbai Suburban (Forum below in short). Appeal No.846/2008 is filed by original complainant/Shri Sandip Manohar Desai, while Appeal No.854/2008 is filed by org.opposite party nos.1 to 3. 2. It is the case of complainant/Shri Sandip Manohar Desai who filed consumer complaint describing himself as a Trustee of Shloka Missionaries, a registered Public Trust, has a grievance that Shloka Missionaries (hereinafter referred as the Trust) had applied for a landline connection with M.T.N.L., Mumbai. Accordingly, work order no.14236 dated 26/05/2004 was issued but M.T.N.L. could not provide a telephone connection for want of availability of telephone lines. Therea...

The Executive Engineer Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.L ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member 1. This appeal filed by original O.P. in consumer complaint no.390/2006 is directed against the order dated 30/8/2008 passed by District Consumer Forum, Solapur wherein Forum below directed O.P. to pay Rs.42,500/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- by way of mental agony and Rs.1000/- for the cost of the proceedings. Being aggrieved by the said order, original O.P. has filed present appeal. 2. There is delay of 34 days in filing the appeal. Therefore misc.application for condonation of delay is filed. Delay is not deliberate or intentional. We are therefore inclined to condone the delay. Misc.application for condonation of delay is allowed. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:- 3. Complainants owns a piece of land bearing Gat no.70/1 admeasuring 2H 43 R situated at Village Bhambewadi, District Solapur. Complainants had taken cash crop i.e.sugar cane on the said piece of land. Complainants had taken electric connection from the O.P. and ...

The Commmissioner of Income-tax Vs. Swedish Telecoms International Ab

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR125; 2009(111)BomLR2722; (2009)224CTR(Bom)418; [2009]318ITR280(Bom); [2009]181TAXMAN148(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has forwarded the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in accepting the claim of the assessee that fees for technical services of U.S. $ 2,17,250 accrued under the consultancy agreement dated 23-6-1985 with Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. be considered as ' Industrial or Commercial Profits' and therefore exempt from taxation as per Article III(1) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Sweden dated 30th July, 1958 2. The assessment year involved herein is AY 1988-89.3. The respondent ('assessee' for short) is a non resident company registered and incorporated in Sweden.4. On 23/6/1985 the assessee had entered into an agreement with 'Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited' (' VSNL' for short) to render consultancy services in implementation of ...

Smt. Savitribai A. Salvi Vs. Smt. Suman Navgire and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR150

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. While issuing Notice on 13th January 2009 this Court directed that the matter would be listed for Final Disposal. Accordingly, by consent I have heard final arguments of parties. Hence, Rule. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2A to 2D waive service. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 12th June 2008 in Civil Appeal No. 586 of 2007. The learned Dist.Judge -12, Pune dismissed this appeal and confirmed the order of the Executing Court dated 16th August 2007 below Exh.37 in pending Darkhast No. 82 of 2000. This is the second time when the petitioner has approached this Court in writ jurisdiction. 3. The petitioner has suffered a Decree of Eviction in respect of an Immovable property and when the said decree was put in Execution by the Decree Holder/Respondents, he raised an objection to its enforceability and executability on the ground that the decree is null and void. That objection was overruled by th...

Om Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR364

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Collector of Kolhapur, State Excise Department, Kolhapur, by which the petitioners have been directed to pay privilege fees at a certain rate. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra, which has been dismissed. That order has also been challenged in the present petition.2. The undisputed facts in the present petition are as follows:The petitioners were issued an F.L-1 licence and carry out business at Village Shiroli, Dist. Kolhapur. The petitioners applied on 25.9.1992 for transfer of their F.L-1 licence from Shiroli to Nagaon since their premises in Shiroli were insufficient for storing Indian Made Foreign Liquor in large quantities. The Collector of Kolhapur i.e. Respondent No. 3, by his order dated 31.10.1992 granted the petitioner permission to transfer the licence from Shirdi to Nagaon on payment of...

Mr. Motiram Lorya Patil Vs. Tata Electric Companies, Transmission Divi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ375Bom

V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this petition which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging judgment and order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33-2(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act in Application (IDA) No. 34/1995. By the said judgment and order dated 26th May, 1997, the Labour Court was pleased to reject the said application on the ground that there was a dispute about the status of the workman and therefore, the Labour Court did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the said dispute and as such there was no existing right in favour of the workman. The said application, therefore, was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this petition in this Court. Brief facts are as under:2. Petitioner Motiram Lorya Patil hereinafter referred to as the workman or an employee and the respondent Tata Electric Companies Transmission Division hereinafter referred to as the employer. It is the case of the workman t...

Hugo Neu Corporation Vs. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR374

Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. This is a petition under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking Enforcement of an Award dated 10th October, 1999, made in United States of America. In this petition. On 17th March, 2009 I had passed the following order:The matter was posted for passing orders. However, at the request of both sides, I heard the respective Counsel on the satisfaction by the petitioner, of the ingredients of Section 47(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Both sides have relied upon the further affidavits and made oral submissions. However, with a view to present a complete picture, both sides have requested that they may be permitted to file written submission. At their request, two weeks time is granted to file written submissions.2. After the written submissions are filed, the date will be given for pronouncement of judgment. Judgment reserved.2. In compliance with the above, respondent had filed written submissions on 30th March, 2009. Ho...