Mumbai Court June 2009 Judgments

Bhagwant Sheshrao Borale Vs. the Education Officer, (Secondary), Zilla ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR146; 2009(111)BomLR2696; 2009(6)MhLj478

C.L. Pangarkar J.1. By this Writ Petition the petitioner a teacher challenges the order passed by the Education Officer holding respondents 4 and 5 to be senior to the petitioner.2. The facts are as follows:Petitioner was appointed as a Assistant Teacher in the school run by respondent No. 2 for the academic session 199596 vide order dated 14.01.1996. The Education officer had sanctioned one additional section each for Standard 5 to 7. As per the staff approval sanctioned by the Education officer, there were in all 6 classes of Standard 5 to 7 in the school run by respondent No. 2. Petitioner submits that as per Government policy, teachers at ratio 1:3 are admissible for one class of Standard 5 to 7. Taking into account the ratio of the admissible teachers in these classes Education Officer had sanctioned 8 lower division teachers for Standard 5 to 7. By order dated 09.10.1996 the Education officer granted approval for the academic sessions 199697. In fact two posts of trained graduate...

The Commissioner of Income Tax-iv Vs. the Solapur Nagari Audyogic Saha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Bom)73; [2009]182TAXMAN231(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The common question of law raised in all these appeals is, Whether the interest income received by a Cooperative Bank from investments made in Kisan Vikas Patra ('KVP' for short) and Indira Vikas Patra ('IVP' for short) out of voluntary reserves is income from banking business exempt under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue fairly stated that, the interest income earned by a co-operative bank from KVP / IVP, where investments in KVP / IVP are made from statutory reserves in compliance of any statutory provision would be income from banking business exempt under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Ratnagiri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. reported in : [2002]254ITR697(Bom) and several decisions of the Apex Court including the decision in the case of CIT v. Karnataka State Co-operative Bank reported in : [2001]251ITR194(SC) . 3. Mr...

Ms. Usha B. Agarwal, Carrying on Business in the Name and Style of Pan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(169)LC79(Bombay); 2009(243)ELT492(Bom)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Admit on the following question:Whether the Appellant Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant was not an aggrieved person and consequently had no locus standi to file the appeal against the order impugned before it2. A few facts may be set out:At the public auction held by MSTC Ltd. On behalf of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Mumbai for the sale of various materials listed in the schedule to the auction notice and belonging to ONGC, the appellant participated in the public action and was declared the successful purchaser. The material purchased by the appellant was at Sr. No. 9 of the schedule to the auction notice which contained a clause as under:Iron and Steel Scrap arising out of 7 Nos. of Temporary Decks and 4 Nos. of Helidecks (cutting permission is allowed to facilitate easy loading.The Petitioner bid in the price of Rs. 59,92,480/-. In the excise duty column appearing in the delivery order, it was indicated as '--' meaning no duty was pa...

In Re: Sequent Scientific Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]94SCL55(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. These Petitions are filed by the Transferor and Transferee company to obtain sanction of this Hon'ble Court to the scheme of amalgamation whereby the entire undertaking of the Transferor company Sequent Scientific Ltd. shall stand transferred and vested in or deemed to be transferred and vested in Transferee company (P.I. Drags) and form part of the business of the Transferee company and to obtain order under Section 394 of the Companies Act interalia for vesting the said undertaking of the Transferor company in the Transferee company without any further act or deed and for dissolution of the Transferor company without winding up.2. The Transferor company was originally incorporated on 16-8-2002 in the name and style of Strides Research and Specialty Chemicals Limited ('SRSCL'). However, after compliance of all necessary formalities under Section 21 of the Act, the name of the company was changed to Sequent Scientific Ltd. ('SSL') with effect from 18-9-2006. The T...

The Divisional Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Abdul ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member None is present for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the order/award dated 23/09/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.396/2006 Mr.Abdul Rashid Mansuri V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. by South Mumbai District Consumer Forum. There is delay of 60 days in filing appeal and therefore, application for condonation of delay bearing No.2292/2008 is filed. We have gone through the application. The application is not supported by any affidavit in proof of the facts stated therein. Besides, the reasons given for delay in sub-Para 3and4 of the application are quite unsatisfactory to condone the delay. We therefore find that delay being not satisfactory explained, application deserves to be dismissed. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:- Order: 1. Misc. Appl. No.2292/2008 for condonation of delay stands dismissed. 2. Consequently, appeal is not entertainable as barred by limitation. 3. No order as to...

Mr. Pranlal D. Shah and Others Vs. Lok Housing and Construction Ltd. T ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard both sides simultaneously on a point for staying the matter in view of Notification No.BRU.2009/CR (204/09)/Ind.10 dated 26th May 2009 issued by Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032 and published in Maharashtra Government Gazette Extra-ordinary Part I-L dated May 26, 2009 and as well as on merit. Both these complaints arise out of deficiency in service on account of builder/developer failing to hand over possession of the flat and for compensation for delayed delivery and on other counts. Certainly, therefore such deficiency in service relates to rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities arising out of agreement to purchase the flat and against those rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities are incurred related to Lok Housing and Construction Ltd., which is an industrial undertaking. Action relating to above referred rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities are required to ...

Reliance Industries Limited (a Company Incorporated Under the Provisio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2507

J.N. Patel, J.1. Appeal No. 844 of 2007 is filed by Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) against Reliance Natural Resources Limited and Appeal No. 1 of 2008 is filed by Reliance Natural Resources Limited (RNRL) against Reliance Industries Limited, aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Company Judge on 15th October, 2007 in the matter of Company Application No. 1122 of 2006 filed by Reliance Natural Resources Limited against Reliance Industries Limited. As the two appeals filed by the parties to the application are filed impugning the judgment and order of the learned Company Judge, these two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.Factual Matrix2. The Company Application No. 1122 of 2006 came to be filed in Company Petition No. 731 of 2005 by Reliance Natural Resources Limited seeking appropriate orders and direction of the Company Judge for effective implementation of the scheme as a result of decision of the Company Judge in Company Petition No. 71 of 2005...

Sandip Arjun Vazarkar Vs. Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Caste ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2371

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. On 17.4.2009, the learned Senior Advocates, as also the government Advocate appearing for the parties have pointed out that as per Orders of this Court dated 11.2.2009, the matter is to be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Accordingly, we have taken up the matter at the end of admission board by making Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner as belonging to Bhandari Naik Community and also to the report of the Vigilance Cell dated 18.9.2008 submitted by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, to the Director of Social Welfare, Panaji, Goa. 3. This is the third writ petition filed by the Petitioner in same cause. The Petitioner has contested election from Ward No. 8 of Socorro Village and has been elected as Member or Pancha of Village Panchayat. This Court has, on 18.12...

Zilda Bras De Sa Widow Wife of Late Antonio Bras De Sa Vs. Narayan Kav ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR140; 2009(111)BomLR2496

N.A. Britto, J.1. This appeal is directed against Judgment/Decree dated 8-7-2008 of the learned District Judge, Panaji. 2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the suit. There is no dispute that the suit property surveyed under No. 74/2 situated at Torda in Village Salvador do Mundo belonged to Adriano Ernest Couto. There is also no dispute that the family of Defendant No. 1(Defendant, for short) has a mundkarial house situated in the said property and which is shown on the survey plan. There is also no dispute that the suit structure admeasuring about 92 sq. meters is not shown on the said survey plan. 3. The Plaintiff claiming to be the grand-daughter of the said Adriano and as such a co-owner of the suit property filed the suit, further claiming that the Plaintiff had found on or about 31-8-2007 that the Defendant was carrying out the said illegal construction and as such she complained by letter dated 31-5-2007 to the Village Pan...

Ramchandra Krushnarao Pitale Vs. the Scientific Cooperative Housing So ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR189; 2010(1)MhLj232

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the original disputant before the Cooperative Court. 3. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows The petitioner is a citizen of India and resident of Nagpur. The respondent No. 1 is a Cooperative Society. The principal activity of the said Society is to allot plots and houses to the persons desirous to obtain plots of the said society. There are bye-laws of the Society for providing such plots. On 13/2/1961, the petitioner applied to the said Society for allotment of the plots. The petitioner was informed that he was allotted plot No. 1 in block J at the rate of 0.37 N.P. per square feet. The area of the said plot was 8000 sq. ft. Accordingly, the petitioner/plaintiff submits that he paid a sum of Rs. 3105/-to the said Society towards the costs of the plot, share money and admission fee. Inspite of such amount having been paid and...