Mumbai Court June 2009 Judgments

M/S. G.A.C. Construction and Another Vs. Rajeev Ashok Bhatia

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 18/12/2007 passed in consumer complaint No.271/2007 Mr.Rajeev Ashok Bhatia V/s. G.A.C. Construction and Anr. by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum (Forum below in short). In the instant case, respondent/org. complainant agreed to purchase a residential flat No.706 in building known as Globe Heights being constructed by the appellants/O.Ps. for consideration of Rs.32,33,010/- as per agreement dated 25/07/2006. For want of documents, need to be supplied by the builder, requirements of the financial institution to raise loan are not complied with and therefore, this consumer complaint was filed. Complaint was allowed as per impugned order/award and feeling aggrieved thereby, org. O.Ps. preferred this appeal. With consent of parties, appeal is heard forthwith. We heard Mr.A.V. Patwardhan, Advocate for the appellants/org. O.Ps. and Mr.A.M. Moghe, Advocate for the responden...

Mrs. Chitra Shah Vs. Consumer Department B.E.S.T. Undertaking – N ...

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 26/12/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.96/2007 Mrs.Chitra Shah V/s. Consumer Department, BEST and Anr. by Central Mumbai District Consumer Forum (Forum below in short). Faced with the energy consumption bill which according to the complainant was in excess than what ought to have been charged, consumer complaint was filed against two departments of BEST, Mumbai and following reliefs were claimed therein:- a) The impugned order dated 22/08/2007 passed by the Superintendent Consumers (N) be set aside. b) The opposite party be directed to provide the statement of the bills from year 1980 to 1992 to as calculate the average consumption thereon. c) The opposite party be directed to pay the amount of bills as per the average of the neighboring flats and also as per the average of previous years bill from year 1980 to 1992 from the date of installation of old meter till the d...

Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji of Indian Inhabitant and Jawahir (Je ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR200; 2009(111)BomLR2641

V.C. Daga, J.1. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice dated 31st July, 2001, (the impugned notice) issued by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioners under Sections 4(1) and 2B(i) of the Public Premises Premises Act'), whereby and whereunder the petitioners are called upon to show cause why the order of eviction should not be made against them, holding them to be unauthorised occupants, under the provisions of the Public Premises Act. According to the petitioners, the impugned notice is without authority of law, without jurisdiction and ultra virus the Public Premises Act and it involves serious disputed questions of title to the premises comprising of the land admeasuring 21,168 sq.ft. ('the said land') out of the larger property (including residential bungalow) admeasuring in all about 1.52 acres situated at Survey No. 417, B. No. 17, Dr. Coyaji Road (formerly known as Elphinston Road), Pune-411 001 ('the subject prope...

Red Carpet Films Ltd. a Public Limited Company Incorporated Under the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR167; 2009(111)BomLR2422

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard finally, by the consent of the parties, based upon the material available on the record.2. The petitioners have invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') as dispute arose between the parties in the matter of an Arbitration Agreement dated 7th November, 2007.3. The petitioners - a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of production of Hindi cinematograph films. Respondent No. 1 - a private limited company is also in the same business. Respondent No. 2 - a private limited company is engaged in the business of distribution, exhibition and exploitation of cinematograph films through out the world.4. The parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (the Agreement) on 7th November 2007 whereby, the petitioners and respondent No. 1 were to jointly produce and complete 3 to 4 full length cinematograph films each year in Hindi language within a period of five years from the date of the execution of the agreement wi...

Omprakash Kawaduji Desai and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR366

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.4.2009 dismissing the petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The appellant has challenged order dated 10.11.2008, by which the Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati exercised the powers of the State Government under Section 145(1-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and dissolved the village Panchayat, Pimpalgaon on the ground that seven out of thirteen members have resigned and their resignations have been accepted. The section, under which the Commissioner took action, reads as follows:145(1-A): If more than half the total number of seats in a Panchayat have become vacant, the State Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, dissolve such Panchayat.The Divisional Commissioner invoked Clause (1-A) which enables the exercise of powers by the State Government if more than half the total number of seat...

M/S. Lotus Builders, Mumbai and Others Vs. Mr. Henry Lobo, Borivali (W ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 5/9/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.249/2004 Mr.Henry Lobo and another v/s.M/s.Lotus Builders and others passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum (Forum below in short). Respondents/org. complainants agreed to purchase a flat bearing no.501 admeasuring 613 sq.ft. in B wing situated on 5th floor for consideration of Rs.14 lakhs and accordingly entered into an Agreement with appellants/org.O.Ps. Consumer dispute arose and accordingly consumer complaint was filed. It decreed in favour of the complainants with following order:- 1. Opponents are directed to rectify the defects in the flat as per Architect report dated 2/6/2004 within two months from the date of receipt of this order or in alternative if they are unable to remove the defects the opponents are directed to pay to the complainants sum of Rs.60,000/- for rectifying the defects in the flat with interest @ 9% p.a. ...

Hero Cycles Limited, Under the Companies Act, 1956 Vs. the Union of In ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR128; 2009(111)BomLR2490; 2009(166)LC228(Bombay); 2009(240)ELT490(Bom)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.The Petitioners imported goods classifiable under Chapter Heading 87149990 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In terms of Sr. No. 25 of the Notification No. 10/2003-CE dated 01.02.2003 as amended by Notification No. 43/2006-CE dated 30.12.2006, the goods imported by the Petitioners are fully exempt from payment of Central Excise duty and consequently no additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is payable on the goods. The Petitioners however, contended that inadvertently and under a bona fide mistake they did not claim exemption under the aforesaid notifications in respect of some Bills of entry. The Respondent No. 3 assessed all the Bills of Entry without extending the benefit of the above Notifications. The petitioners cleared the goods imported by them on payment of additional duty at the rate of 14% under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.2. According to Petitioners, the bills of entries w...

Mrs. Shobhana Bhartia and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Shri Ajay ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2433

R.P. Sondur Baldota, J.1. The applicants are associated with Hindustan Times Limited which is a company registered and incorporated in New Delhi and engaged in the business of printing and distribution of Hindustan Times Newspaper. Applicants No. 1 and 2 are Editorial Directors, Applicant No. 3 Resident Editor, Applicant No. 4 Author and News Reporter, Applicant No. 5 Sub-Editor, and applicant No. 6 Publisher and Printer of Hindustan Times. They have filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the order dated 15th September, 2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd court, Esplanade, Mumbai issuing process in Criminal Case No. 1993/SS/2004 and for quashing of the proceedings. The complaint in question is filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 499, 500, 501 and 502 IPC alleging that the article 4th published by the applicants in Hindustan Times on October, 2001 titled `Mumbai NCB Chief Under CBI Scanner' , is defamatory. Respondent No. 2 is a pub...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Swaraj Shrikant Thackrey @ Raj Thackrey

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2465

R.P. Sondur Baldota, J.1. This petition is filed by the State under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge correctness and legality of the order dated 22nd October, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 640 of 2008 filed by the respondent and the order dated 22nd October, 2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 3rd Court, Kalyan on the application by the petitioner for transfer warrant in respect of the respondent. 2. The summary of the facts stated in the petition is as follows : On 19th October, 2008 the Railway Recruitment Board was conducting examination for the post of Assistant Station Master and Clerk at 67 examination centres in the State of Maharashtra. In all, 16,000 candidates from all over the country were to appear for the examination. Tilak Vidyamandir, Dombivli (East), District-Thane was one of the examination centres. The members of Maharashtra N...

Raymond Limited, Under Companies Act, 1956 and Mr. Vasant Naag of Navi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR174; 2009(111)BomLR2444; 2009(167)LC7(Bombay); 2009(240)ELT180(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Whether, a manufacturer who manufactures goods falling under Tariff Heading 55.06 from duty paid inputs falling under Heading 55.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 ('CET' for short) is entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 30/2004 dated 9/7/2004 is the basic question raised in this petition.2. According to the revenue, serial No. 10 of the Notification No. 30/2004 specifically provides that the inputs used in the manufacture of goods falling under Heading 55.06 must be `staple fibres' and therefore the exemption is available only if the inputs used are `staple fibres' falling under Heading 55.03 and the exemption would not be available if the inputs used are goods falling under Heading 55.01.3. According to the petitioners, the Notification No. 30/2004 read with the new tax regime for the Textile sector announced by the Hon ble Finance Minister on 8/7/2004 clearly shows that the exemption is not restricted to the duty paid inputs falling under Head...