Mumbai Court June 2009 Judgments

Hyt Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR111

Sinha D.D., J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith by the consent of respective parties. Heard Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Counsel for petitioner and Mr. Raghuvanshi, Additional Solicitor General of India.2. Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing machine tools. Similarly, respondent No. 4 is a foreign company registered in the United States of America and is also engaged in manufacturing of equipment similar to that of petitioner. On 10.10.2005 a tender came to be floated by respondent No. 3 on behalf of respondent No. 1-Government of India for supply of one three-roller, four axis CNC Flow Forming Machine, which is required by the Ministry of Defence.3. Though the tender notice stipulated that the technical bids would be opened on 18.11.2005, the date of opening of technical bid was deferred from time to time and eventually, the t...

Amrut Ginning Factory Vs. Namobai Tanaji Pawar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR237

1. We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Malte for the appellant. There are certain admitted facts, which we are listing herein below.a) The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer' for short) is respondent No. 1 in application (WCA. No. 25 of 2000) pending before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation @ learned Judge, Labour Court, Jalgaon. Said application is filed by respondents 1 to 7.b) Respondents 1 to 7 are legal heirs of deceased Tanaji s/o Shrichand Pawar.c) Deceased Tanaji Pawar was working as a labourer with employer at the relevant time.d) On 21.4.2000 deceased Tanaji was on duty with employer. On 21.4.2000 the duty hours of deceased was from 5.00 a.m. till 1.00 p.m.e) On 21.4.2000, while unloading the cotton bales from goods truck within the premises of factory of employer, accident has occurred. In this accident, due to falling of cotton bale on the person of deceased Tanaji, deceased Tanaji initially was rushed to the local hospital and subsequently to the Hospi...

Bank of Baroda, Office Mandvi, Pune and Another Vs. Commondore Bipinch ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: 1. These two appeals arises out of same award, involves same question of facts and laws and as such, disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These appeals arises out of order/award dated 15/10/2007 passed in consumer complaint no.451/2006, Commondore Bipinchandra Bhaskar Bhagwat V/s. Bank of Baroda by District Forum, Pune (Forum below in short). The complaint was allowed and the bank was directed to pay interest for the period 14/09/2004 to 10/10/2005. The complainant not satisfied with the order passed and filed F.A.No. 1570/2007. Similarly, opposite party feeling aggrieved by the order passed, preferred F.A.No.1457/2007. 3. Undisputed facts are that complainant/Commonder Bipinchandra Bhaskar Bhagwat (hereinafter referred as complainant) is a retired Government servant from the services and under scheme known as Deposit Scheme for Retired/Retiring Government Employees, on 10/10/19990, he had deposited Rs.5,50,000/- with opp.part...

Bank of India, Office Mandvi, Pune and Another Vs. Commondore Bipincha ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: 1. These two appeals arises out of same award, involves same question of facts and laws and as such, disposed of by this common judgement. 2. These appeals arises out of order/award dated 15/10/2007 passed in consumer complaint no.451/2006, Commondore Bipinchandra Bhaskar Bhagwat V/s. Bank of India by District Forum, Pune (Forum below in short). The complaint was allowed and the bank was directed to pay interest for the period 14/09/2004 to 10/10/2005. The complainant not satisfied with the order passed and filed F.A.No. 1570/2007. Similarly, opposite party feeling aggrieved by the order passed, preferred F.A.No.1457/2007. 3. Undisputed facts are that complainant/Commonder Bipinchandra Bhaskar Bhagwat (hereinafter referred as complainant) is a retired Government servant from the services and under scheme known as Deposit Scheme for Retired/Retiring Government Employees, on 10/10/19990, he had deposited Rs.5,50,000/- with opp.part...

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Amitabha Sengupta Vs. State o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR616; 2009(111)BomLR2243

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The Petitioners by this petition take exception to the designation of the land which is the subject matter of this petition for the purpose of rehabilitation of slum dwellers and foot path dwellers by effecting minor modifications in the final development plan.2. The facts that are relevant and material are as follows: The Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. 54.93% share of the Petitioner No. 1 company are held by the Government of India. The Petitioner No. 1 carries on business of Petroleum products. The Petitioner No. 2 is the share holder of the Petitioner No. 1 company and is working as General Manager at the Refinery of the Petitioner No. 1 in Mumbai. According to the Petitioner No. 1, the Petitioner No. 1 set up a refinery in 1955 at Mahul, Chembur. The Petitioners produce and refine about 12 million metric tones per annum of petroleum products, such as Motor Spirits, High Speed Diesel, Aviation Turbine Fuel, Liquified Petroleum...

Jamdar High School Education Society, Represented Through Its Secretar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR661; 2009(6)MhLj678

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. These two Writ Petitions by management against the order of School Tribunal can be disposed of by common judgment since the facts in both the petitions are identical.2. The facts are as follows:Petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and also a Public Trust. Petitioner Society runs a Primary School, Secondary School and Junior College at Nagpur. All the employees of the School are governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977. The Deputy Director of Education Nagpur Region had granted permission to the petitioner to open first year Junior College during the Session 200304 on permanent no grant basis. Petitioner Society was therefore in need of the teachers for conducting those classes. Respondent No. 1 possesses a degree in Science and a degree in Education i.e. B. Sc. B. Ed. He was appointed initially by order dated 06.08.2004. Petitioner contends that the appointment of the res...

Gondia District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR657

C.L. Pangarkar J.1. Both these Writ Petitions can be decided by a common judgment since the parties to the petitions are identical and the questions involved are also identical.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties.3. The Writ Petition No. 4302 of 2008 has been preferred by the Gondia District Central Cooperative Bank against the order passed by the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies on 10.09.2007. Petitioner is a District Central Cooperative Bank and a society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960. The petitioner being a federal bank of all the primary cooperative societies in the district is also governed by the provisions of Banking Regulation Act 1949. In view of this the Reserve Bank of India has powers to issue directions in the public interest and in the interest of banking sector to the petitioner bank. The petitioner submits that those directions are binding on the bank. Reserve Bank of India in accordance with the re...

B.R. Mangalur, Sub Divisional Engineer Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Throug ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR630

ORDERP.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner was subjected to chargesheet under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965(hereinafter 'the said Rules, 1965') on the ground of alleged misconduct. A memorandum was issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the said Rules, 1965. It is alleged against the petitioner that while functioning as J.T.O. in charge of 57 exchange scrapping on 13th December, 1991, he tried to move scrapped cables in lorry No. MRL 9749 after 17.00 Hrs. unauthorisedly against the standing instructions on loading and transportation, without any valid gate pass by making an additional entry in the Goods Collection Memo dated 13th December, 1991 of M/s. Super Fast Carriers. The statement of imputations of misconduct was also furnished to the petitioner. Necessary documents were also supplied to the petitioner. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by appointing an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, after cons...

The Branch Manager Canara Bank, Guruvayur Branch, Dist. Kerala State a ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal arises out of order/award dated 06/09/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.316/2007 Shri M. Shunmugan V/s. Branch Manager, Canara Bank and Ors. passed by District Consumer Forum Thane (Forum below in short). Respondent/org. complainant has a saving bank account with Canara Bank, Vartak Nagar, Thane. He had been to Kerala to visit Guruvayur Temple for marriage of his daughter. From the Bank ATM, using his Debit Card on 26/12/2006 he withdrawn in all Rs.10,000/-. Using card on three occasion on that day, respectively withdrawn Rs.4,000/-, Rs.4,000/- and Rs.2,000/-. On the next day i.e. on 27/12/2006 he had again used Debit Card on two occasions and withdrawn Rs.5,000/- on each occasion. However, at the time of use of ATM machine, he had not received any account statement. After returning to Thane, when he checked his Pass-book entries, found that Rs.5,000/- were wrongly debited on 26/12/2006. He made a complaint with B...

Sau. Mandatai W/O Prabhakar Pande Vs. the Additional Commissioner and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR610; 2009(111)BomLR2712; 2009(6)MhLj596

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.2. This writ petition is preferred by one Mandatai Pande, who was elected as Sarpanch of village Dapura Distt. Akola.3. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows - Petitioner Mandatai was elected as a Sarpanch of village Dapura while respondent Nos. 4 to 9 were elected as members of Grampanchayat Dapura. Respondents No. 4 to 9 submitted a requisition to the Tahsildar i.e. respondent No. 3 for bringing no confidence motion against the petitioner. This notice was served by respondents No. 4 to 9 on 7/9/2008. The Tahsildar called the meeting of the Grampanchayat on 13/9/2008. On same day a meeting of the members of the Grampanchayat was held in presence of the Tahsildar. The notice of the said meeting, it is alleged, was served on the petitioner as well as the members of the Grampanchayat. In spite of such notice having been served on the petitioner, it is alleged remained abse...