Mumbai Court July 2009 Judgments

Mr. John Manuel Vaz and His Wife and Mrs. Elvira B. Vaz as Power of At ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR521; 2009(111)BomLR2893

N.A. Britto, J. 1. Rule. By consent heard, forthwith. 2. This is Tenants' Writ Petition and is directed against the judgment dated 18.2.2009 and the learned Administrative Tribunal,Panaji, upholding the order of eviction passed by Rent Controller, dated 31.7.1997. 3. Briefly stated, the respondent landlady filed an application for eviction of the petitioners/tenants dated 19.10.1987 for the eviction of the tenants from a flat belonging to her and situated on the second floor of the building known as 'Altino Apartments' at Mapusa Goa. There is no dispute that the suit flat was let out to the tenants by Lease Agreement dated 1.5.1986. 4. The eviction application was filed stating that the landlady did not have any other accommodation in the city of Mapusa and the house which landlady was occupying belong to her sister Zelia Remedios who intended to come down and stay there and as such the suit flat was required for her personal occupation. 5. After both the parties led evidence, it was b...

Networth Stock Broking Ltd. Vs. K. Vinaya Prasad S/O. K.S. Bhat

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR553; 2009(111)BomLR3292

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. An Affidavit of service is taken on record. The Respondent appeared through his advocate and filed an affidavit, which is also taken on record.2. There is an agreement which provides an arbitration clause. Based upon Clause 19 of a Member-Client Agreement and as agreed, the Court in Mumbai has jurisdiction to decide the dispute or conflict arising out of the agreement. The agreement deals with buying and/or selling and dealing in securities and trading on the National Stock Exchange. The business was done accordingly. The amount as claimed is due and payable by the Respondent. Therefore the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') in February 2009 before this Court at Mumbai.3. The relevant Clause 19 of ClientMember Agreement is reproduced as under:19. The member and the constituent declare and agree that the transactions executed on the Exchange are subject to Rules, Byelaws and ...

Cit Vs. Madhukar K. Inamdar (Huf)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Bom)77; [2009]138ITR149(Bom); [2009]185TAXMAN101(Bom)

Vijay C. Daga, J.1. Heard. Perused appeals and affidavit dated 30th June, 2009 filed by Shri K.K. Sharma, CIT-3, Thane, wherein he has stated that in the opinion of the revenue, the appeals and/or petitions filed before 15-5-2008 involving substantial question of law of recurring nature can be filed notwithstanding the fact that total cumulative tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 4 lakhs. According to him, such an appeal shall not be governed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT for short) Circular/IT Instructions No. 5 of 2008, dated 15-5-2008 ((2008) 217 CTR (St) 1). Since all these appeals were filed prior to the date of issuance of said circular, they need to be heard and decide on merits.2. The issue raised needs consideration. It cannot be disputed that the CBDT circular dated 15-5-2008 has no retrospective effect. It operates from the date of its issuance. As a corollary thereof, the appeals which come on board for consideration after the issuance of CBDT ...

Prabhakar Rajaram Mule and Others Vs. Kumari Punam Jayavant Vyavhare, ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member These appeals are stand disposed of by this common judgment since they involved common questions of law. Feeling aggrieved by rejection of the applications to stay the proceedings, these appeals are preferred. Stay was claimed on the ground of parity. We heard Barrister Mr. J.M. Baphna, Learned Counsel appearing for appellants and Advocate Mr. Anand Kulkarni, Learned Counsel appearing for respondents/org. complainants. In the instance cases, appeals would not lie against the impugned order. On this count alone, appeals are liable to be dismissed. Besides that we examined the cases on merits as to whether it would be proper to invoke revision powers, suo motu. No illegality could be attached to the impugned orders since mere filing of the appeals ipso-facto would not operate as stay. Under the circumstances, even on merits also there is no substance in the appeals and there is also no valid reason to invoke revision ...

Kishore Pravinchandra Choksi Vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Mr. Amit Sheth, Advocate for the complainant. Statement and prayer clause considered. Vehicle against which the consumer complaint is filed worth Rs.9,19,420/-. Total claim is also not more than Rs.20 Lakhs. Costs of the proceedings are not to be included in the claim. Under the circumstances, claim is overvalued. Complainant to do the needful. Hence, the order :- Order: 1. Complaint is returned forthwith to the complainant to file it before the appropriate Forum with necessary correct statement as to valuation. 2. Complainant is permitted to file the complaint within 4 weeks from today with the appropriate Forum....

Vastu Shakti Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai Vs. Shri Sa ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal arises out of order/award dated 18/10/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.44/2008 Shri Sambhaji Baburao Bhosale V/s. Vastu Shakti Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. by Addl. District Consumer Forum Thane (Forum below in short). Admittedly, respondent/complainant- Shri Sambhaji Baburao Bhosale (hereinafter referred as complainant) agreed to purchase a flat bearing No.A-11 situated on first floor of A Wing of the building of Vijay Nagar CHS Ltd. for admeasuring 350 sq.ft. for total consideration of Rs.3,59,000/-. He had paid the entire consideration i.e. Rs.3 Lakhs paid through HDFC Bank and Rs.59,000/- paid by him from time to time. O.P. failed to deliver possession. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on that count, this consumer complaint is filed. Initially, refund of consideration with interest is claimed and later on, as per amendment, possession of the flat is claimed as a principal relief. Forum below by t...

Shri Lokesh Chandra, I.A.S. Director (Transmission) Ministry of Power, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2009Bom147; 2009(4)BomCR513; 2009(111)BomLR2747

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order passed by the State Information Commissioner, Nagpur Region in second appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005.2. The facts are as follows Respondent No. 4 herein applied to respondent No. 6 the Public Information Officer General Administration Department, Mumbai to supply the information of assets and liabilities of the petitioners. Respondent No. 4 was informed by respondent No. 6 that such information cannot be supplied as that would invade the privacy of individual. An appeal was preferred before the first appellate authority, who also rejected the appeal. Respondent No. 4, therefore, preferred second appeal before the State Information Commissioner, Nagpur Division. The Commissioner directed the information to be supplied. The order was challenged before this Court by the petitioners and this Court set aside the order and directed the Commissioner to decide the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners in t...

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (i) Vs. Dilip Rajaram Nemade and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR555

S.S. Shinde, J.1 This first appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 2.2.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in Land Acquisition Reference No. 366 of 1990. 2 The land of respondents from village Khedi Tq. Jalgaon came to be acquired for development of Jalgaon Industrial area by M.I.D.C. The S.L.A.O. Jalgaon issued notification under Section 32(2) of the M.I.D.C. Act 1962 and final notification was issued and published on 22.8.1985. In response to the notice, the claimants respondents herein claimed Rs. 1,50,000/-per acre by way of compensation. The Collector, rejected the claim of the respondents. The respondents received compensation awarded to them under protest. On issuing notice under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government took possession of the entire land in question. The present respondents filed Reference contending that the S.L.A.O. ought to have valued the land on the basis of the N.A. potentiality as the same is qu...

Vishram Chandrakant Dalvi Vs. the Daily Publications, (a Division of N ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR95; (2010)ILLJ513Bom

ORDERV.M. Kanade, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment passed by the Labour Court dated 15th November, 2008 whereby the application filed by the applicant - petitioner herein under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the recovery of the amount mentioned in the statement annexed to the application is rejected. The Labour Court held that the applicant could not claim benefits beyond the terms of settlement under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Act. Brief facts are as under:2. The respondent No. 1 who was private limited company registered under the Companies Act, was in the business of publishing the newspaper known as 'The Daily'. It is the case of the applicants - petitioner herein that since May 2000, the respondents had stopped paying them earned wages on one pretext or the other. The union, therefore, filed the complaint of unfair labour practice vide Complaint (ULP) No. 582 of 2000 before the Industrial Court, Mumbai. The Industrial Court...

Ranjeet Sanghvi Carrying on Business in the Name and Style of Sanghvi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3162; 2009(168)LC17(Bombay); 2009(241)ELT161(Bom)

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties. Perused the orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer as well as by the Appellate Tribunal. 2. On perusal of the record, it appears that the present appellant, Ranjeet Sanghvi and one Baban Sharma used to import second-hand printing machines in the name of different parties under the actual user condition prescribed in the Import policy during the relevant period. However, having so imported such second-hand printing machines, they used to sell to different parties in violation of the said conditions and the import policy. Similarly, they had imported 16 multilith single colour second-hand printing machines from M/s. CJB Printing and Equipment, U.K. in the name of M/s. Classic Pack, a proprietorship concern of one Shailesh Mehta, vide Bill of Entry No. 1588 dated 15.11.1997. However, all those machines were offloaded in the premises of Baban Sharma at 51A, Pragati Industrial Estate, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai. Later ...