Mumbai Court July 2009 Judgments

AlimoddIn Faizuddin, Deceased Through His Legal Representatives Shamsh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3378

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is a second appeal preferred by legal representatives of original Plaintiff Alimoddin, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Nanded, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 246 of 1984 on 19.1.1990, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Degloor, in Regular Civil Suit No. 75 of 1980 decided on 12.9.1984.2. At the time of admission of this second appeal on 2.4.1990, no substantial question of law was framed. The substantial question of law that may be raised is whether the District Court committed an error in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit holding that no right of easement by prescription is proved by the plaintiffs and my answer to the said question of law is in the negative for the reasons discussed hereinafter.3. It is the case of the appellants that they are the owners of house No. 116 situated at Degloor. Original Plaintiff Alimoddin purchased it ...

Alluminium Profiles Limited, a Public Limited Company Registered Under ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(169)LC76(Bombay); 2009(241)ELT9(Bom)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.After the matter was heard, the Counsel for the Petitioner has made a submission that the Petitioners are not contesting the order of the Settlement Commission but only pray that they may be allowed to pay by installments. The limited question is whether it is open to this court, in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction, to grant installments to the Petitioners even when the Settlement Commission itself in its order has not so provided.2. The learned Counsel for that purpose has placed for our consideration the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 5th August, 1985 contained in F. No. 289/56/85-CD.9. By that circular it is set out that the powers of the Principal Collector of Central Excise to pay by installments have been withdrawn and this issue had been under consideration of the Government for some time past. The Government ha...

Aditya Birla Retail Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the Companie ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj154

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') for securing the amount of Rs. 4,34,59,200/- (Four crores thirty four lacs fifty nine thousand two hundred only) with interest @ 18% p.a. from 27th October, 2008 with a liberty to withdraw the same; also prayed that in the event the Respondent failed to deposit the amount, to issue a Warrant of Attachment before Judgment under the Provisions of Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') and attach the premises described in the plaint; also prayed for an injunction against them from selling, transferring, alienating, encumbering, disposing off or creating any third party right, title or interest of the premises described in Exhibit 'A'.2. Admittedly, there is an Arbitration Clause in the agreement, executed between the parties called 'the leave and license Agreement' dated 05/07/2008. On the same day, three other agreements being (i) Facilit...

Cit Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2010]186TAXMAN186(Bom)

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. This is a group of petitions filed by the CIT challenging the orders dated 29-1-1999 passed by the IT Settlement Commissioner/respondent No. 1.2. All these petitions pertain to the applications made by the Ajmera Group of firms and their partners under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act for settlement of the tax liability for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94. Ajmera Group consisted of mainly four firms, namely, Ajmera Housing Corporation, Bombay, Yogi Corporation, Vijay Nagar Corporation and Ajmera Housing Corporation, Pune. They are all engaged in the business of land developers, builders and contractors. Main business was run by Ajmera Housing Corporation, Bombay and had undertaken development and construction of majority projects in Shastri Nagar, Andheri, Bombay. Project was under development and construction in phases since 1986. In January, 1989 and again in December, 1992, searches were conducted in the premises of Ajmera Group under Section 132(1) and v...

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Through Branch Manager, Jeevan Vi ...

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 27/06/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.35/2008, Mr.Vir Bhan Sharma v/s. Mr.Vir Bhan Sharma by (Additional)District Consumer Forum, Thane (Forum below in short). According to respondent/org.complainant, he has preferred this claim as a Nominee under the policy taken for his wife, who unfortunately died on 17/05/2006 due to Jaundice. The claim was repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 30/03/2007 and hence, this consumer complaint was filed. Forum below decreed the claim and feeling aggrieved thereby, insurance company preferred this appeal. We heard Adv. Shri A.S. Vidyarthi for the appellant and respondent in person. Perused the record. Insurance claim was repudiated on the ground of non-disclosure of the ailment. Whether repudiation is proper or not is the question before the Forum below. Appellant/Insurance Company had filed its written statement and was...

Shri Murgappa Shivarudrappa Vs. Shri Amarsihna Babasaheb Dafale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR197

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner has challenged orders passed by the Tehsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal as also by the subdivisional officer confirming that order. The order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in revision has also been impugned. The petitioner, who claims to be a tenant of the respondent, has been directed to hand over the lands which are owned by the trust of which the respondent is a trustee.2. The undisputed facts in the present case are as follows:The respondent is a trustee of a public trust known as Khairat Peechandhe Nawaz Trust. His father who was also a trustee of the devasthan lands, had filed a civil suit against the petitioner. That suit was dismissed as it had abated.The respondent filed an application under Section 32P off the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. By this application the respondent sought restoration of the possession of the land of the Devasthan which was occupied by the petitioner. The respondent contended in...

Waman Atmaram Lavand and Krishnabai Atmaram Lavand Vs. Dattatraya @ Da ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3431

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The Petition challenges the order passed by the Tenancy Awwal Karkoon under Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). It also impugns the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer confirming the order as well as the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissing the Revision Application filed by the petitioners.2. The land bearing Gat No. 181 was being cultivated by two brothers Baba and Aba Lavand. Each of the brothers had half a share in the property. Since they were tenants on the tiller's day, they exercised their right and purchased the property under the provision of Section 32G of the aforesaid Act. Each of them thus became a deemed purchaser of half the land. The purchase price was fixed for the land and accordingly that price was deposited by the Lavand brothers and a certificate was issued under Section 32M of the aforesaid Act. Sale Certificates were issued and the mutatio...

Kashinath Narayan Gharat Since Deceased Through L.Rs., Daya Kashinath ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR93

ORDERV.M. Kanade, J.1. The petitioner herein expired during the pendency of the petition and his legal heirs have been brought on record. The petitioner had filed this petition challenging judgment and order passed by the Labour Court, Thane, whereby the Labour Court was pleased to direct the respondent to reinstate him in the same position as if he was never terminated, however, taking into consideration the laches on the part of the petitioner workman, he was not awarded back wages. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of non-payment of back wages has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Brief facts are that the petitioner was employed with the first respondent on 6.4.1981. His services were terminated on 31.7.84. After a lapse of almost three years, the petitioner approached the Conciliation Officer sometime on or about 7.8.87 and the Government, thereafter referred the matter for adjudication before the 2nd Labour Court, Thane, in th...

Girdharilal S/O. Mahadeo Tekade Vs. the Education Officer (Secondary) ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj91

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition by a graduate teacher seeks quashing of an order passed by Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur on 02.09.1997, whereby the petitioner was placed below respondents No. 4 to 6 in the seniority list of teachers in Category 'C'.2. The facts, which are material for deciding the petition are as under : Petitioner and respondents No. 4 to 6 were appointed in respondent No. 3 school run by respondent No. 2 Society and improved their qualifications as shown in chart below:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Petitioner Name Date of Qualific Qualifica- Date of Trained Ramarks-respon- first ation on tion acquisi- graduatedent appoint- date of acquired tion of teacher's ment appoint subseque such scale ment ntly qualifi- granted cation. on--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Petitioner Tekade 01.09.71 S.S.C. D.Ed., 1974 01.08.79 Appointed B.A., 1979 as ...

Kopran Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010[17]STR115

ORDER1. P.C. Rule : Heard forthwith.2. The Tribunal in the impugned order directed to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 2 crores plus service tax within 8 weeks of its order dated 20-4-2009 : 2009 (16) S.T.R. 279 (Tri. - Mumbai) and further passed an order that failure to comply with the directions will result in dismissal of their appeal without any further notice to them. Petition is filed on 24-6-2009. Appeal has not been disposed off by the separate order. The effect however of order dated 20-4-2009 would be that if the amount has not been deposited then the appeal itself would stand dismissed. Prayer Clause (a) in the petition is to impugn the said order.3. In the instant case, petitioner have received consideration from M/s. Cadila Health Care Ltd. for transfer of formulation as also assignment of trade marks as also from technical know-how and technology transfer fees. Apart from that, they have received an amount by way of marketing assistance fees in connection with the above transacti...