Mumbai Court June 2009 Judgments

Shri (Capt.)amar Sudhir Parkar and Others Vs. State Bank Employees Hou ...

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 25/08/2006 passed in consumer complaint No.570/2001 Shri Madhukar Sudhir Parkar and Anr. V/s. State Bank Employees Housing Scheme, Chairman, Punyanagari Co-op. Housing Society and Ors. by Addl. District Consumer Forum Pune (Forum below in short). Appellants/org. complainants (hereinafter referred as complainants) agreed to purchase a flat No.4 situated in first floor in Wing-E having area of 560 sq.ft. at the cost of Rs.2,13,360/- from State Bank Employees Housing Scheme known as Punyanagari Co-op. Housing Society (Proposed). Respondents/O.P.Nos.2and3 Mr.Vilas Madhukar Gupte and Mr.Abhijit Prabhakar mahajani were the promoters of the said society. They entered into an agreement accordingly with the complainants on 10/06/1992. Complainants made payment of Rs.2,09,305.40 plus registration charges of Rs.2,140/- in between period 20/11/1991 to 15/11/1994 and for which receipts were issued b...

Bharatiya Kamgar Sena, Prafulban Society Vs. Chefair Employees Guild a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2735; (2009)IVLLJ771Bom

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, Rule called out and heard forthwith.2. The Petitioner Union has been functioning as a registered trade Union of M/s. Chefair Flight Catering, Respondent No. 2. In the passage of time, they have been signing different settlement with Respondent No. 2 relating to the conditions of service matters of member employees and other matters related thereto. Respondent No. 1 - Union on 28th October, 2003 filed an application under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the period from April, 2003 to September, 2003, notice of which was displayed on 17th December, 2003. In the proceedings, the Petitioner - Union filed an application for impleadment as a necessary party which was allowed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai. Thereafter, on 5th January, 2004, the PetitionerUnion filed the Written statement opposing the application for reco...

United Spirits Limited (Formerly Known as Shaw Wallace Distilleries) V ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR401; 2009(111)BomLR2810; 2009(167)LC80(Bombay); 2009(240)ELT513(Bom)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. The Appellants herein, were formerly known as 'Maharashtra Distilleries Limited' (MDL). They are engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and distribution of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and have been manufacturing 'Royal Challenge Whisky' since 1982. The manufacture of 'Royal Challenge Whisky' requires the addition of undenatured Ethyl Alcohol (malt spirit) which is the essence. The essences added are procured locally from manufacturers and suppliers in India. Some of the essences required and purchased by the Appellants, in fact, are imported by various suppliers and subsequently sold to the Appellants.2. On or about 07.10.1991, the Senior Superintendent of the Department visited the Appellants' factory in Aurangabad in respect of investigation regarding purchase of essences from M/s Finacord Chemicals Private Limited and M/s S.R.Nagpal and Company. According to the Appellants, they cooperated with the officers and furnished whatever documents which ...

Maharashtra State Electricity Board Through the Assistant Controller o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2009Bom185; 2009(6)BomCR385

P.R. Borkar, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of same judgment and decree. Some of the facts giving rise to these appeals which remain undisputed at this stage are as under:.The Maharashtra State Electricity Board, which is appellant in First Appeal No. 370 of 1993 and respondent No. 1 in First Appeal No. 442 of 1993 is original plaintiff. It has placed order with M/s. Kirloskar Electric Company Limited, Bangalore for supply of 25 MVA 132/11 KV transformer. The transformer was to be unloaded at Nandgaon Railway Station and was then to be carried to Aurangabad SubStation for installation. P.B. Salunke, respondent No. 1 in First Appeal No. 370 of 1993 and respondent No. 2 in First Appeal No. 442 of 1993, who was original defendant No. 1 had undertaken contract of transporting the transformer from Nandgaon Railway Station to substation at Aurangabad. The Maharashtra State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffboard') insured the operation of unloading transformer and tr...

Trambak Barku Patil Vs. Damu Chindhu Patil and Rupchand Chindhu Pati ( ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR341; 2009(111)BomLR2754

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original plaintiff whose suit for declaration and possession was though decreed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chopada, in Regular Civil Suit No. 57 of 1978, decided on 30th November, 1981, said judgment and decree came to be reversed in the appeal by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, in Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1982, decided on 4th March, 1986.2. Brief facts relevant for decision of this appeal may be stated as below:.Plaintiff Trambak is adopted son of Barku. Barku had expired on 1.04.1938. Savitribai the widow of Barku sold suitland to original respondent No. 1Damu Chindhu Patil and his brother respondent No. 2Rupchand on 26.05.1946 by a registered saledeed. Plaintiff Trambak was adopted by Savitribai on 25.08.1944. Thereafter, Trimbak filed Regular Civil Suit No. 16 of 1945 before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yawal, challenging the saledeed executed by Savitribai in favour of the plaintiff. Copy of judgment i...

Rayat Shikshan Sanstha and anr. Vs. Yeshwant Dattatraya Shinde

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj476

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The Petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal dated 24.9.1990. By the said order, the School Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal filed by the Respondent herein and direct the Petitioner School to reinstate the Respondent No. 1 as a permanent assistant teacher and pay him the back wages from the date of termination to the date of his reinstatement. The Respondent was appointed on a temporary basis initially for a period of one year from 10th October, 1986 to 30th April, 1987. Thereafter, again a fresh order of appointment was issued on 24th June, 1987 for a period of one year. The said appointment was also made purely on a temporary basis. Approval was granted by the Education Department to the said appointment only for a period of one year and on a temporary basis and the said appointment was made against the reserved ST category. Thereafter, again on 30th July, 1989, a fresh order of appointment was issued, appointing him on ...

Ashok Laxman Attarde and ors. Vs. Atmaram Bhanu Saindane and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR231

Gavai B.R., J.1. By way of Writ Petition No. 365/2009, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 3rd December 2008 passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in Appeal TRB No. 197/B/2008, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioners and confirming the Order dated 30th May 2008, passed by the Tahsildar, Dharangaon, in Aadivasi Case No. 1/2004.2. By way of Writ Petition No. 366/2009, . the petitioners have challenged the order dated 3rd December 2008, passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in Appeal TRB No. 198/B/2008, thereby dismissing the appeal filed . by the present petitioners and confirming the order dated 30th May 2008, passed by the Tahsildar, Dharangaon, in Aadivasi Case No. 1/2002.3. The facts, in nutshell, giving rise to the present petitions are as under:(i) S/Shri Kautik Narayan, Waman Narayan, Damu Narayan and Bhaidas Narayan Koli, who are predecessors in title of the present responde...

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Nashik Workers Union

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ854Bom

1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated March 2, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3562/1997. The relevant facts are that a complaint was filed before the Labour Court by Nashik Workers Union, a registered trade union under the MRTU & PULP Act which is the State legislation, seeking certain relief against the appellant. That complaint was disposed of by the Labour Court by its order dated August 8, 1994. The Labour Court held that the appellant is guilty of adopting unfair labour practice, directed the appellant to reinstate the employees whose names were mentioned in the annexure of the complaint with full back wages. That order was challenged in Revision before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. The order of the Industrial Court is dated July 8, 1997. Against the order of both, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, Writ petition No. 3562/1997 was filed. That petiti...

Sau. Surekha Suresh Deshmukh, Through A.R./ Shri Suresh R. Deshmukh, K ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: We heard Adv. Shri B.M. Patil for complainant and Adv. Shri S. Mehta for opposite party. Advocate for opposite party tenders his vakalatnama, taken on record. In the instant case, it is alleged by the complainant that her brother-in-law fraudulently opened a current bank account with the opposite party/Bank bearing no.4163 under name and style as Surekha Textiles. Said account was opened by forging the signature of the complainant and then the said bank account was operated and during the period 09/03/1999 to 03/02/2003 amount deposited in the said account was siphoned out. It is alleged that opposite party/Bank officials helped the brother-in-law of the complainant to open a bogus account. In respect of allegation of the complainant that the brother-in-law helped to open a fraudulent account, there is no material placed on record. The complainant claimed that she has suffered a loss of about Rs.26 lakhs on account o...

Rajendra Ramchoddas Badshah Vs. Deepak Ishwardas and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR412

Potdar A.V., J.1. Rule.2. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself.3. By the present writ petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed below Exh. 116 in Reg. C.S. No. 819/1993, pending on the file of 7th Jt.Civil Judge, J.D. Aurangabad, by which the learned trial Judge has allowed the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., as according to the first respondent, during the pendancy of the suit before the trial Court, the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have relinquished/surrendered their share in favour of respondent No. 1. Inspite of this amendment was opposed by the petitioner herein on the ground that the trial has already commenced, if the proposed amendment is allowed, it will change the nature of the suit, and lastly and most importantly that the cause of action to the suit and the proposed amendment are totally bas...