Mumbai Court June 2009 Judgments

Dineshbhai Oza Vs. Dena Bank and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR242; (2010)ILLJ518Bom

Majmudar P.B., J.1. The petitioner, who has resigned from the employment of the first respondent Bank on 16th October, 1986, has approached this Court with a prayer that the respondents may be directed to pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner in view of the Pension Scheme framed by the Bank.2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk in August, 1963 with the respondent No. 1 Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1982 his only son unfortunately expired in an accident and since then his wife lost mental balance. Under the circumstances, it was not possible for the petitioner to attend the job as well as to look after his wife. Under these circumstances, the petitioner gave his resignation from the services of the Bank on 16th October, 1986. The respondent bank vide its letter dated 5th January, 1987 informed the petitioner that the resignation of the petitioner was accepted.3. Subsequently, the respondent Bank framed Pension Regulations in 1995 viz. Den...

Petroleum Employees Union Vs. Chief Labour Commissioner and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR383; (2009)IVLLJ745Bom

1. The petitioner-trade union by this petition challenges the process initiated for verification of the membership of the trade union operating in the establishment to find out which trade union commands support of the majority of the workers. The case of the petitioner-trade union in nutshell is that they had given their consent for carrying out process of verification of membership of trade union by secret ballot pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1785 of 1997 dated 5th May, 1998 (Oil and Natural Gas Commission Karmachari Sanghatana v. Ministry of Petroleum) and as now by its judgment in the case {Air India Employees Guild v. Air India Ltd.) reported in : 2007(1) Bom.C.R. (F.B.) 529, the Full Bench of this Court has overruled the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 1785 of 1997 dated 5th May, 1998, now the process of verification of membership of the trade union by secret ballot system cannot be carried out. In our opinion, the petition cannot...

Mr. M. Damodar Raya Bhatt Vs. Dr. Rajveer K. Chinoy and Another

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal arises out of order/award dated passed in consumer complaint no.30/2004, Mr.M.Damodar Raya Bhatt v/s. . Dr.Rajveer K.Chinoy and ors. by District Forum, Central Mumbai (Forum below in short). The complaint stood dismissed by the impugned order/award and feeling aggrieved thereby, the complainant has filed this appeal. 2. On 26/05/2002 the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) was a victim of hit and run case of road accident in a serious condition with compound fracture leg injury and was admitted at Hinduja hospital i.e. respondent/opposite party no.2 on emergency basis where he was attended by respondent no.1/Dr.R.K.chenoy. Complainant was diagnosis of fracture of L/3 (Lower 1/3) tibia left side compound grade III C. Tibia was exposed and complainant was profusely bleeding. The preliminary diagnosis was made and he was immediately operated by opposite party no.1/Dr.Chinoy with the help of his...

Smt. Vinodabai Dattatraya Bhairi, Through Her Power of Attorney Holder ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by org.complainant on dismissal of her consumer complaint bearing no.524/2005, Smt.Vinodabai Dattatray Bhairi v/s. Shri Sidhu Ashappa Dhangar passed on 29/11/2008 by Additional District Forum, Pune (forum below in short). The appellant/complainant entered into a transaction to purchase a shop from builder/developer M/S.S.S.Enterprises and accordingly entered into an agreement dated 03/01/1997, which was duly registered on 07/03/1997 and taken possession of the shop on payment of consideration. According to complainant, respondent/opposite party/Siddhu was a Legal Advisor of said developer (however admittedly Siddhu is not a legal practioner) and therefore, before purchase of the shop the complainant had approached him to verify the title documents. At the time of agreement, as alleged by the complainant, due to wrong assessment of the stamp duty required for registration of the documents,...

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Sir V.T. Marg, Mumbai Vs. Mr. Vil ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: None for applicant/appellant. We heard Adv.Shri Pawar for respondent. Perused the record. First restoration application bearing Misc.Application No.979/2008 is already disposed of and no more pending. While allowing Misc.Application No.1678/2008 as per order dated 28/04/2009 a conditional order was passed for restoration of Appeal no.1311/2007. Adv.Shri Pawar submitted that conditional cost of Rs.1,000/- for restoration of appeal is not yet paid by the appellant. Therefore, as per the said order restoration application stands automatically dismissed. We record accordingly, and struck of this appeal from the file. Hence, the following order:- Order: 1. A.No.1311/2007 be struck of from the file. 3. No order as to costs. 4. Declared in open court. 5. Copies of thee order herein be furnished to the parties....

Mr. Haribans Singh Partner of M/S. Super Construction Co., Vashi, Navi ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member 1. This appeal filed by original O.P.no.2 in consumer complaint no.598/2006 is directed against the order dated 28/12/2007 passed by Additional District Consumer Forum, Thane, whereby Forum below directed O.P. to hand over possession of flat nos.11 and 12 on the first floor of the proposed building known as Sai Nagar and to execute Agreement/Conveyance in favour of the complainant and pay interest on Rs.8,64,000/- @ 8% p.a. from 24/8/1995 till date of order to the complainant. Forum below further directed O.P. to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, O.P. has filed present appeal. 2. There is inordinate delay of 116 days in filing the appeal. No reason is given by the appellant for delay and as such, we find that appellant failed to give any satisfactory cause to condone the delay. Therefore, application for condonation of delay stands rejected. As and by way of abundant precaution, we heard the parties and...

Mr. Haribans Singh Partner of M/S. Super Construction Co., Vashi, Navi ...

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.296/2006 is directed against the order dated 28/12/2007 passed by Additional District Consumer Forum, Thane, whereby Forum below directed O.P. to pay interest on Rs.4,50,000/- @ 8% from 8/7/2000 till date of order to the complainant. 2. Forum below further directed O.P. to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the said order, original O.P.no.3 has filed the present appeal. 3. There is inordinate delay of 116 days in filing the appeal. No reason is given by the appellant for delay and as such, we find that appellant failed to give any satisfactory cause to condone the delay. Therefore, application for condonation of delay stands rejected. As and by way of abundant precaution, we heard the parties and examined this appeal on merit too. 4. Complainant agreed to purchase a flat no.34, E wing, 2nd floor admeasuring 630 sq.ft. in the building known...

M/S. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Mahatma Road, New Delhi Vs. Mr. Badrudd ...

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 26/05/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.34/2008 Mr. Badruddin A. Patel V/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. and ors. by Addl. District Consumer Forum Thane (Forum below in short). Undisputed facts are that respondent/org. complainant-Shri Badruddin A. Patel (hereinafter referred as complainant) in the month of June 2007 had purchased Elantra CRDi (D) model car from respondent/O.P.No.2/S.A.P. Holding and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as Dealer) who is an appointed dealer by manufacturer of the said car, namely, appellant/O.P.No.1-Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (hereinafter referred as Hyundai). Respondent/O.P.No.3 Mr. Keswani acted for and on behalf of dealer in the transaction. It is contention of the complainant that above referred particular model was selected and purchased by him looking to its special features relating to the safety since it was mentioned in the brochu...

The Commissioner of Sales Tax Maharashtra State Vs. Rolta Computer and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)25VST322(Bom)

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The Commissioner of Sales Tax filed the application seeking direction to the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal to refer the following questions to the High Court under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act.1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of Section 2(10) of the Maharashtra Sales Tax on the Transfer of the Right to use any goods for any purpose Act, 1985, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the impugned transaction does not amount to a sale under the provisions of the Lease Act?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that even after consideration that the constructive possession of the computer being given to the contractee mentioned in the impugned invoice the computer continues to be under effective control of the respondents contractor and, therefore, transfer of right to use the computer by the contractee could not be held to have...

In Re: Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]151CompCas538(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The sanction of the court is sought under Sections 391 - 394 read with Sections 78 and 100 - 103 of the Companies Act, 1956, to the scheme of arrangement between Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. ('the demerged company') and Reliance Telecom Ltd. ('the resulting company') and their respective shareholders and creditors.3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has stated that they have complied with all the requirements as per directions of this Court and they have filed necessary affidavits of compliance in the court. Moreover, the petitioner-companies also undertake to comply with all the statutory requirements, if any, as required under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Rules made thereunder.4. The Regional Director has filed an affidavit stating therein that the scheme is not prejudicial to the interest of the creditors, shareholders and the public. However, in paragraph 6 of his affidavit, he has stated...