Mumbai Court July 2009 Judgments

Rajendra Pandurang Pagare and Sk. AnisoddhIn Sk. KamroddhIn Vs. the St ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3223; 2009(4)MhLj961

ORDERB.R. Gavai, J.1. The following issue is referred to this Larger Bench:Whether project affected persons can be appointed without advertising the posts, ignoring their qualifications and merit.2. Writ Petition No. 7472/2007 was filed in this court by some project affected persons, challenging the advertisement dated 17th August 2007, issued by the District Collector, Jalgaon, and the District Selection Committee for Jalgaon, challenging the requirement of submitting application and competing with other candidates from the said category as provided in the said advertisement. A direction was also sought to fill in 5% of the posts of Clerk-cum-Typist and Talathi from the project affected persons category, on the basis of seniority as mentioned in the register maintained by the respondent No. 2 (District Collector, Jalgaon).3. The Division Bench of this court, after considering the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (For short, hereinafter re...

M/S. Essel Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai and Another Vs. Mercedes Benz Of ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Mr. S.B. Prabhawalkar, Advocate for the complainants. Perused the complaint. In the instant case, soon after the purchase of the vehicle, damaged right side front tyre and wheel disc was noticed. Matter was reported and damaged tyre and wheel disc was immediately replaced by the Company. Other problem was about milometer, which was showing faulty reading. Both these problems were attended as soon as the complaints were made. Since the milometer reading could not be calibrated or brought back to the position desired, the warranty period was extended suitably and the problem was attended accordingly. After going through these experiences, complainant becomes, perhaps, disgusted and filed this consumer complaint with a request for refund of entire price paid by him for this luxury vehicle. It is also alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the said car and therefore, vehicle be taken back and replaced the...

M/S. International Business Machine and Another Vs. Dr. SachIn Shah Ha ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 24/10/2008 passed in Recovery Application No.106/2007 in consumer complaint No.38/2000 Dr.Sachin Shah V/s. M/s.International Business Machine and Ors. by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum, whereby the request to stay the proceeding on the ground of filing of the appeal was rejected. The reason given for rejection is that no stay was given till that date by the State Commission. We heard Mr.S.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Perused the record. It is a well settled position of land that mere filing of the appeal ipso-facto does not operate as a stay to the impugned order/award. Therefore, when the Forum below observed that there being no stay, request to stay the proceeding cannot be granted, there being no illegality committed, Revision Petition itself deserves to be dismissed. There is no illegality of any kind committed by the Forum below. Tod...

Mr. Arfeen Khan S/O. Mozaffar Khan, Andheri (W), Mumbai Vs. Auto Hange ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate h/f. Mr. A.M. Saraogi, Advocate for the complainant. Perused the record. This consumer complaint is filed with a claim of Rs.99 Lakhs on the ground that Mercedes Benz vehicle purchased by the complainant which met with an accident when his wife was driving, had a manufacturing defect. The only summarization about manufacturing defect is that at the time of accident, safety device of air bags though came out were not inflated sufficiently. There is no other evidence produced on record to substantiate that the vehicle really has any manufacturing defect. Accident may be unfortunate, but certainly the complainant is not an expert to testify about manufacturing defect in the vehicle. His summarization since not based on any technical experts report or any valid ground, we find that the complainant failed to show any cause of action based upon manufacturing defect in the vehicle. There e...

Smt. G. Shivayogam Vs. M/S. Bhoomi Construction, Mumbai and Others

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) Perused the record. It is alleged by the Complainant that she has booked residential flat No.501, admeasuring 895 sq.ft. in area situated on the 5th floor of I wing of proposed Bhoomi Breeze building. She agreed to pay the price @ Rs.2,501/- per sq.ft. which comes around Rs.24,46,995/- inclusive of stamp duty, legal charges, society formation charges, 12 months maintenance charges, corpus fund, infrastructure charges, grill charges etc. She paid Rs.51,000/- as booking amount on 14/06/2005 by cheque. However, the project never comes up. There was exchange of correspondence/notices. Therefore, she filed this consumer complaint to claim relief of possession after receiving the balance consideration and alternatively claim Rs.23 lakhs as compensation. In addition to it she also claimed Rs.50,000/- as cost of the proceeding. 2) Admittedly, there is no written agreement had taken place. Since, the project was yet to start, the Co...

Mrs. Meena Shivappa Diwakar Mr. Shivappa Diwakar, Mumbai Vs. M/S. Bomb ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Ms.Li Shu Fen, Advocate for the complainant. In the notice dated 25/09/2008 issued prior to filing of this consumer complaint, compensation claimed is quantified less than Rs.20 Lakhs. Now, while filing this complaint said claim is made on higher side. We find the claim is inflated just to attract jurisdiction of this Commission. Under the circumstances, we pass the following order:- Order: 1. Complaint is returned forthwith to the complainant with a direction to file the same before appropriate Forum after incorporating necessary corrections in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction, within 30 days from today....

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Grasim Industries Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)225CTR(Bom)127; [2009]319ITR154(Bom)

1. This notice of motion is taken out by the revenue seeking condonation of delay of 575 days in filing the above Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`I.T. Act' for short). 2. Mr. Saluja, learned Counsel for the revenue, relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Velingkar Brothers reported in : [2007]289ITR382(Bom) submitted that this Court has power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the I.T. Act and for the reasons set out in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion, the delay in filing the above appeal be condoned. 3. Mr. Mistry, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has brought to out notice two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Limited and Anr. reported in : 2009(236)ELT417(SC) and Chaudharana Steels (P) Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in : 2009(238)ELT705(SC) , wherein it is...

Smt. Maria Leonora Hilda Da Conceicao Da Silva Correia Vs. Shri Escola ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3684

N.A. Britto, J.1. This appeal is directed against Judgment/Decree dated 13-8-1998 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao, by which the learned Civil Judge has decreed in favour of the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 41,500/-with interest at the rate of 6%, as against the plaintiff's claim of Rs. 300,778/-with interest at the rate of 15%. Out of the said sum of Rs. 41,550/- decreed in favour of the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 17,510/-was admitted by the defendant to be payable to the plaintiff, and a sum of Rs. 10,000/-was awarded to the plaintiff towards the inconvenience suffered by her due to untimely delivery of six shops and the flat agreed to be built by the defendant pursuant to an agreement between the plaintiff's husband and the defendant dated 5-3-1980. The defendant's counter claim was dismissed.2. The parties hereto are being referred to, in the names, as they appear in the cause title of the suit.3. The plaintiff had claimed the said sum of Rs. 3,00,778/-on account of bre...

The Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank of Goa Limited Through Its General ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3575

N.A. Britto, J.1. Heard.2. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to two orders of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Goa. The first is dated 16.8.2007 and the second is dated 30.01.2008. By the second order, the Registrar has refused to review the first order dated 16.8.2007. By the first order, the Registrar has allowed an appeal filed by respondent No. 3 herein and has set aside the order dated 26.8.1995 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and has directed him to rehear the matter on condition that the respondent No. 3 deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-as costs to the Petitioner. The petitioner (Bank, for short) has sought for declaration for declaring the said orders of the respondent No. 1 Registrar as orders passed without jurisdiction or authority or power to entertain, hear and dispose of the purported appeal either under the Act of 1960 or under the Act of 2002 and consequently quashing of the said orders by a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, direct...

Mrs. Kiran S. Gawande Vs. Premlata Wd/O Kanhaiyalal Pali and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR79

P.D. Kode, J.1. The aforesaid appeals are preferred respectively by respondent No. 1 -owner of offending vehicle involved in the accident (hereinafter referred as 'Owner') and claimants-legal representatives of one deceased Kanhaiyalal Pali -victim of accident (hereinafter referred as 'Claimants') in Claim Petition No. 802 of 2002 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nagpur taking exception to judgment and order dated 4th November, 2003 passed by said Tribunal in said claim, partly allowing claim for compensation made by claimants to the tune of Rs. 6,80,200/- along with an interest at the rate of 6 % from the date of their petition out of their original claim for Rs. 10,50,000/- only against the owner and dismissing their claim against respondent No. 2 Insurance Company in said claim petition ( hereinafter referred as 'Insurer').2. The owner has preferred the appeal with a prayer for setting aside above referred judgment and order ordering her to pay compensation to claimants with fur...