Mumbai Court July 2009 Judgments

Mrs. Rajashri Kishore Ingale, Pune Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organisa ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mrs. S.P. Lale, Honble Member This appeal filed by the appellant/org. complainant is directed against the order dated 21/02/2008 in consumer complaint No.20/2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum Pune. The Forum below dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the complainant herself has filed present appeal. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:- The complainant is the bonafide member of the scheme to construct house for Railway Employees Welfare Organisation to get the constructed house/flat on obtaining the plot from Local Authority or the Government. The construction is carried out after engaging builder. The activity is carried out on No Loss No Profit basis. The appellant/complainant-Mrs.Rajashri Ingale in consumer complaint No.20/2005 allotted a bungalow bearing No.A-4A-18 and received possession in the month of June-July 2000. Certain deficiencies were noticed, which requires repairs. Inspection was carried out on 04/09/2001. The complain...

Dighi Koli Samaj Mumbai Rahivasi Sangh (Regd.) Through Its Secretary S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR97; 2009(111)BomLR2842

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself.2. The Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi, vide its Notification dated 30th September, 2005 granted environmental clearance for development of Dighi Port Development Project ( Phase - I ) in terms of Coastal Regulations Zone Notification, 1991, as amended from time to time, subject to effective implementation and compliance of the conditions stated in the said Notification. Number of conditions were imposed upon Dighi Port Limited for development of Dighi Port which related to various aspects including socioeconomic development welfare measures in the area, including providing of drinking water scheme, vocational training fishery related development programmes, compliance with various provisions of law and the Notifica...

Santosh Bhau Humane Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2908

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This is an Appeal by Original Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 252 of 1997 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan. He has been convicted of offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life so also fine of Rs. 250/-by the Judgment and Order dated 22nd April 2002, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan. 2. The case of the prosecution is that in all five accused are the residents of Umbhrai, Tahasil, Taluka - Shahapur, District Thane. They have Agricultural lands. The deceased Pandharinath Janardan Humane so also his family members are the neighbours of the accused. On 11th August 1997, when the deceased, his sister Gulabbai and other family members were in the house at about 7.30 p.m., the Appellant (A-1) stood opposite the house of the deceased and started abusing the family members. The deceased came out of the house and enquired with the Appellant as to why he was abusing them. It is alleged...

Prof Olivinho J.F. Gomes Vs. the Chief Secretary State of Goa,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR84; 2009(111)BomLR2863

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeks to challenge denial of full pension for service rendered by the petitioner with the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The order dated 5.10.2007 holding him entitled to pension for a period of 6 years 6 months only passed by Under Secretary (Higher Education) for Government of Goa, is also impugned. 2. The facts are not in dispute at all. The petitioner, who was in Indian Revenue Service, last worked as an additional Collector, Central Excise and Custom Department at Aurangabad. Because of his inclination towards academics, he applied for voluntarily retirement at the age of 44 years and was permitted accordingly on 18.06.1987 under Rule 48-A of CCS(Pension) Rules 1972 as he had completed requisite 20 years of actual service. As per the said scheme, his employer i.e. the Central Government gave him weightage of 5 years as he had actually worked for 21 years 6 months and 18 days. This weightage was notional an...

Mr. Meghraj S. JaIn Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through Joint Secreta ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2010]97SCL42(Bom)

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. By Order-in-original dated 9.7.1996, the Special Director, Enforcement held the present appellant guilty of contravention of the provisions of Section 8(1), 8(2) and 9(1)(b) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) for purchase and sale of foreign exchange unauthorisedly and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh and Rs. 75,000/- respectively. The appellant challenged that order in Appeal No. 95 of 1999 before the appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange. The appeal also came to be dismissed. Therefore, he has preferred this appeal before the High Court.2. To State in brief, it is the contention of the Enforcement Directorate that on the basis of certain information, residential premises of one Narendra Mirani came to be searched on 11.4.1989 under Section 37 of FERA and during the search, besides the Indian currency, different foreign currencies valued at about Rs. 6 lakh were recovered. Some loose sheets were also seized from his house. Premises of certain other per...

Hamida Haji Haroon, Adult Indian, Vs. Khairunnisa Haji Mohammed, India ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR55

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal challenges an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 5th December, 2008 in Notice of Motion No. 3791 of 2008.2. The undisputed facts are that, Civil Suit No. 2633 of 2007 is filed in this Court by the first respondentplaintiff. The appellants before us are the heirs and legal representatives of original defendant No. 8. The respondents to this appeal are the other defendants. The further undisputed fact is that the prayers in the suit are that the property, more particularly described in the schedule annexed and marked as Annexure 'A' to the plaint, be partitioned by metes and bounds and vacant and peaceful possession thereof be handed over to the plaintiff in respect of her 6.25% share and the balance be distributed between the defendant Nos. 1 to 16. The other prayers are either in the alternative or in furtherance of the main prayer for partition.3. It is common ground that in a notice of motion being Notice of Motion No. 3536 of 2007 moved ...

Dena Bank, Constituted Under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Tr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR182

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Both these cross Petitions filed by the Management as well as the workman against the self-same award dated 14th December 2007 in Reference No. CGIT-2/68 of 2001 can be disposed of together. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the workman is that he joined Dena Bank having Branch at Chinchani Village as a Sepoy on 8th September 1986. He was asked to work as a temporary Sepoy employed by the said Chinchani Branch. It is his case that at the relevant time, there were two Sepoys employed at the said Branch. He asserts that he was doing the job sincerely, honestly and diligently to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors till 1998. However, without confirming him in the employment, he was asked not to report on duty from 1998. In this backdrop, the complaint was made, as a result of which, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/17/2001-IR(B-II) dated 10th May 2001 in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-...

Gajanan Uddhaorao Garole Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secreta ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR170

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Heard Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri Ahirkar, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3. Admit. Taken up for final hearing by consent.2. This is an appeal by a Teacher whose services were terminated by the respondents. The learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the School Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant because the appointment order was not signed by the Head Master and though he is an OBC candidate, he was appointed on a post which was reserved for a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe category.3. Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appointment could not have been held to be bad on the ground that the appointment order was not signed by the Head Master, as it was signed by the Secretary of the Management and was in substance the order by the management. He places reliance upon Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Privat...

Dhananjay Ramkrishna Tukakne Vs. Visvesvaraya National Institute of Te ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR172; 2009(6)MhLj242

F.M. Reis, J.1. This writ petition has been filed seeking inter alia writ, order or direction declaring that the action of respondents in not fixing the petitioner to the pay scale of Rs. 22004000 as applicable to the Lecturer is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and for a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner in the said pay scale. It is the case of the petitioner that he passed HSSC Examination in the year 1972 from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh and he has also passed B.E. (Electrical Engineering) in First Division in the year 1977 from Government College of Engineering and Technology, Raipur (M.P.) and also passed M. Tech. in Design and Production of Heavy Electrical Equipment from Moulana Azad College of Technology, Bhopal. The petitioner came to be appointed by Respondent No. 1 as Senior Technical Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 590900 (prerevised) and was confirmed as a Senior Technical Assistant on 6.9.1990....

Ashok Laxmanrao Gadge, Head Master, New English High School Vs. Pratim ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR67

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. These two Writ Petitions can be disposed of by common judgment since the controversy involved is identical. Both these Writ Petitioners are also directed against the same order of the School Tribunal whereby he has set aside orders of promotions of petitioners.2. Facts relevant for the purpose of these Writ Petitions are as follows:Petitioner Ashok Gadge in Writ Petition No. 1860 of 2008 was appointed as a teacher in the respondent No. 2 School on 11.08.1981. He possessed qualification B. Sc. B. Ed. on the day he was appointed as Assistant Teacher. He was promoted as Assistant head Master w.e.f. 01.01.1986, subsequently he was promoted to the post of Head Master on 01.04.1988. Petitioner belongs to backward community and as per the policy of the reservation of the Government the petitioner was promoted. According to petitioner said promotions of petitioner as Head Master has been approved by the Education Officer when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assi...