Mumbai Court July 2009 Judgments

Wasan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Official Liquidator of Meltron Semcon ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]94SCL187(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of the Application preferred by the Auction Purchaser as well as the Official Liquidator's Report dated 24th March, 2009 together.2. Briefly stated, pursuant to the direction issued by the Company Judge, the movable and immovable assets of the Company in liquidation were put up for auction. On the basis of inventory and valuation report submitted by Yardi Prabhu Consultants Pvt. Ltd. dated 1st March, 2008, reserved price of the assets put for sale was fixed at Rs. 15 crores. The valuer had given break-up of fair market value of the movable assets as Rs. 24,85,000/-. He assessed realizable sale value of the movable assets at Rs. 22,36,000/- and distress sale value thereof as Rs. 19,88,000/-. Insofar as the immovable property is concerned, the valuer assessed fair market value thereof at around Rs. 14,69,00,000/-. The movable assets included plant, machinery, furniture and fixtures, whereas immovable assets consisted of land and bu...

Mrs. Annamma C. Varghese Vs. M/S. Lok Housing and Construction Ltd., R ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member: This is a complaint filed against the builder for not giving possession of the flat for which part consideration was paid by the complainant. The complainant has claimed refund of the amount along with interest, compensation and cost. The complainants case is that she has booked a flat no.301 in Lok Upahar Project at Virar(West) being constructed by opp.party for total cost of Rs.5,98,500/-. As per terms and conditions, complainant paid Rs.63,000/- on 18/10/1995 as a deposit against the provisional booking of flat. The complainant paid total amount of Rs.3,87,820/-. The complainant further states that she received a letter dated 02/11/1998 from the opp.party wherein opp.party offered her an alternative flat in Evershine Nagar at higher rate. The complainant refused the proposal of the opp.party and asked for refund of consideration amount paid to the opp.party. Opposite party vide its letter dated 23/12/1999 intimated their decision to th...

Kum.Kamal Baburao Virole, Pune Vs. Pimpari Chinchavad New Town Develop ...

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 30/07/2008 passed in Consumer complaint No.298/2006 Kum.Kamal Baburao Virole V/s. Pimpari Chinchavad New town development Authority and Another by Additional Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Pune (Forum below in short). 2) Appellant/Org.Complainant was allotted a flat having area 371 sq.ft. situated in scheme no.3, sector 20, Krushna Nagar Housing Scheme, B type for a total consideration of Rs.2,31,875/- by Respondent/Org.O.P.No.1-Pimpari Chinchavad New Town Development Authority (hereinafter referred as Housing Board). The Complainant has deposited entire purchase price of the flat with Housing Board during the period 20/01/1007 to 13/11/1997. However, she was not given possession of the flat. The possession was ultimately delivered to her after the intervention of the office of the Lok Aayuktta on 17/11/2004. Thereafter this consumer complaint was filed for compensation inter-al...

Mr. Chandrakant Vakharia Vs. Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Ltd., Mum ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: None present for the appellant. Perused the record, particularly the application for condonation of delay. There is delay of 151 days in filing the appeal. The reason given is one line statement stating that the appellant had not received the copy of award, which was posted to him on 11/09/2008. The reason given is quite unsatisfactory, since the delay of 151 days is not sufficiently explained. The record shows that proceedings before the Forum below was prosecuted diligently by the appellant. He was aware of the date on which the award passed and was posted to him. Considering over all circumstances, his bear statement that he had not received the copy of the award passed does not inspire confidence. Delay is not satisfactorily explained. The application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed. We hold accordingly, and pass the following order:- Order: 1. Misc.Application No.114/2009 for condonation for de...

Shri Madhavrao Sadashiv Aher Vs. Icici Prudential Life Insurance Co. L ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This appeal arises out of order/award dated 29/08/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.08/2008, Mr.Madhavrao S.Aaher V/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. District Forum , Nashik (Forum below in short). Appellant had taken insurance policy from respondent/opp.party and paid first premium of Rs.12,500/- through cheque no.010972 dated 22/03/2006 subject to realisation. The insurance cover was to be effective only on encashment of the cheque and thus, receiving amount of the first premium. It is the case of the complainant that he came to know about non-realization of the cheque, when second premium was due and had made inquiry with the respondent. The respondent also informed in writing about the dishonor of the said cheque and non receipt of the first premium accordingly to the complainant by its letter dated 03/09/2007. It is the contention of the complainant that when he made inquiry with his banker, he was ...

Subhash Ramchandra Dumbre Vs. Maharashtra State Co-operative Agricultu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR88

ORDERV.M. Kanade, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 24 of 1995. By the said judgment and order dated 7th February, 1996, the Industrial Court was pleased to allow the revision application filed by the respondent herein and the set aside the order passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 191 of 1987 whereby the Labour Court had directed them to reinstate the complainant to his original post with continuity of service and back wages.2. Brief facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was employed by respondent No. 1. His services, however, were terminated by order dated 25th September, 1985 on the ground of his absence from duty. The petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint of unfair labour practices. The Labour Court allowed the complaint and held that no inquiry had been held by the respondent into the misconduct of absence from duty and no opportunity was given to the pet...

Indian Planetary Society Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Bom)247; [2009]318ITR102(Bom)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. The Petitioner is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The aims and objects of the society inter alia includes research in planetary science, astronomy astrophysics, solar physics and allied subjects. Apart from that other objects are to popularize science among the general public of our country, to conduct short courses on science, astronomy, geography for students and teachers in schools, colleges and universities, to Publish news letters/magazines etc. and other activities as per the Trust Deed including to arrange conferences and seminars on science and planetary science, astronomy and astrophysics etc. The society was established on 12th December, 2000. It has two wings (i) Research Wing and (ii) Wing for popularization of Science. According to Petitioner, they are publishing two popular science magazines (Virat Surya (ii) Kids Science. It has also five powerful telescopes, mini planetarium and exhibition...

Goldendreams Arcade Pvt. Ltd., a Company Incorporated and Registered U ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR187; 2009(6)MhLj454

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Admit. Respondent waives service.2. At the request of the parties, heard finally.3. This is an appeal against the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant's Arbitration Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the said Act').4. The Appellant claims to be entitled to specific performance of an agreement dated 16.8.2007 under which the Respondents agreed to assign and transfer to the Appellant and the Appellant agreed to purchase and acquire from the Respondents all the benefits of an agreement for lease in respect of the property for the residual period of lease for a consideration of Rs. 3,40,00,000/-.5. In the above application under Section 9 of the said Act, the Appellant has sought the usual interim reliefs in an action of this nature for the appointment of a Court Receiver and for an injunction restraining the Respondents inter-alia from encumberi...

Suresh Bapurao Landge and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR199

F.M. Reis, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Badhe, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sonak, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 3 and Shri Mehadia, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.2. This writ petition has been filed in respect of the acquisition of land of the petitioners and other land owners from Mouza - Ghatrohna, Juni Kamptee, Gondegaon and Kandri, etc. by Respondent No. 2 for its project Gondegaon Open Cast Coal Mines by issuing notification under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and subsequently the acquisition regarding Juni Kamptee and Ghatrohna was dropped by not paying rehabilitation amount as required by the Land Acquisition Officer.3. It is the case of the petitioners that the land acquisition proceedings were started in the year 1992-93 and possession of lands were taken by Respondent No. 2 in 1994 by paying some advance compensation subject to determination of compensation in land acquisition c...

Mr. Altaf A. Pirani Vs. Silver Park “a” Co-op.Hsg.Society Lt ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member These revision petitions are filed by the revisionist being dissatisfied by the order passed by District Consumer Forum, Thane, dated 04/12/2008 on application dated 19th September 2008 for setting aside ex-parte order (and to allow to file written statement) in consumer complaints bearing nos.15/2008 and 85/2008 Mr.Altaf A. Pirani v/s. Silver Park A Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Since these revisions involves common question of law and facts, we are disposing of these revision petitions by this common order. We heard Revisionist in person and Mr.P.W.Adarkar-Advocate for opponent no.1. None for other opponents. After considering the documents placed before us and perusing the order dated 04/12/2007, we find that the Roznama dated 9/7/2008 shows that the matter was fixed for written arguments and adjourned to 14/8/2008. On 14/8/2008 the summary of events as per Roznama is blissfully silent as to whether any written arguments were filed or arguments were he...