Mumbai Court July 2009 Judgments

Vijaya Ramesh Barve, Vs. Bank of Maharashtra and the Commissioner of W ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ364Bom

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The Appeal has been preferred by the wife of the deceased Ramesh Dattatraya Barve who was employed as a Machine Operator on the Machine Accounting System in the respondent-Bank. The deceased Ramesh joined service on 16th June, 1970. He died on 7th September, 1988. According to the applicants, i.e. the appellants herein, the deceased was posted in the Reconciliation Department and he died as a result of a heart attack as a consequence of the stressful work performed by him. The appellants claimed an amount of Rs. 2,65,956.83 as compensation from the respondent-Bank. Since the amount was not paid, the appellants preferred an application under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, (for short the said Act), being Application W.C. No. 164 of 1990.2. The respondent-Bank opposed the claim by contending that it was not covered by the said Act. It was also contended that the employee was not a workman governed by the said Act and therefore the claim was not maintainable. The...

Mr. K.K. Verma Vs. Rail Vihar Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Navi Mumbai and O ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Both these complaints stand disposed of by this common order since they involved common questions of law and identical facts. We heard Mr. S.P. Kaushik, Advocate for the complainants. Perused the Complaints. In the instant cases, the dispute between Member of the Society and the Society itself, any how, is tried to be brought within the four corners of the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora but unsuccessfully. The Managing Committee of the Society has taken a decision to give permission to erect a Mobile tower on the roof of the Society building. This subject is also to be discussed in the Annual General Meeting of the Society as mentioned in the Complaint (scheduled on 12th July, 2008). Therefore, the decision relating to erection of the mobile tower was before the General Body Meeting also and the Complainants being members of the Society are expected to participate in it. The Managing Committee, if acted beyond their ...

N.N. Sippy Productions Vs. Air France Maker Chambers Vi Nariman Point, ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member It is alleged by the complainant that for the shooting at abroad location their unit boarded Opposite Partys flight No.AF-135 which was scheduled to travel from Mumbai to Zurich via Paris on 31st August 1998. At the destination station, one baggage which contained continuing costumes for actress Karishma Kapoor was found missing. The baggage was not found. Since continuing costumes of the actress were lost, the entire shooting schedule got disturbed. The complainant had to pack-up and returned back to India without any shooting. As a result of which it suffered heavy losses. Opposite Party tried to settle the alleged deficiency on their part on account of loss of baggage by offering sum of Rs.22,640/- equivalent to SDR 391 considering Special Drawing Rights 17 (SDR 17) which fixed the liability of O.P. as a carrier i.e. condition of carriage by airline. Consumer complaint was filed claiming compensation of Rs.15 Lakhs and cost of...

Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribal Development Corporation Ltd., Vs ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Mr. S.A. Pandit, Advocate h/f. Mr. Sandeep Kapote, Advocate for the complainant. Perused the Complaint. In the instant case relying upon the Clause 8 of the Insurance Policy, the claim made towards the loss of goods which was due to fire in the godown, stood repudiated and it is categorically mentioned that considering the report of Surveyor, Police Statement and Three Members Committee Report (Investigation Report), which was appointed by the insured itself, the loss caused to the stock was not an accidental one. Since, the repudiation is made on the basis of terms of Insurance Policy, apparently, there cannot be any deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company and, therefore, Consumer Complaint would not lie. Besides that the issue involved would be fraud committed or as to whether incident was of accident or something more than it. These issues involve leading evidence on these controversia...

Mohammad Nazir and anr. Vs. Kaizad Gustad and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3889

Mridula Bhatkar, J.1. This revision petition is preferred by the aggrieved party i.e. the parents of the deceased against the order dated 14/1/2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai discharging the accused from the charges of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.2. The victim Nadiya Khan was working as an Assistant Director with the accused where he was shooting one film. Some Scenes on the railway tracks were to be shot, so accused who was the director of the film had sought the necessary permission of the railway authorities. The railway authority had given him permission to shoot on dead track i.e. Track No. 1 near Mahalaxmi Railway Station. The accused did not restrict himself to track No. 1 but went on track Nos. 4,5 & 6 which were live tracks from which the local trains were running with high frequency. At the time of preparation of the rehearsal the accused was giving instructions on walkie talkie to his Assistant Directors including th...

Shekhar S/O Govindrao Kinkhede Since Deceased Through Legal Representa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj217

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition by the defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 583 of 1997 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, raises the question as to the circumstances in which a person joining as co-plaintiff much after the suit was filed could be given benefit of proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation Act.2. Facts relevant for deciding this petition and about which there is not much of a dispute, are as under:The defendants were alleged to have executed an agreement of sale in respect of certain property in favour of original plaintiff Manjudevi and her husband. A suit for specific performance of said agreement was filed on 30-5-1997 by Manjudevi alone (Special Civil Suit No. 583 of 1997), seeking execution of sale-deed in her own name against the petitioners and defendant Nos. 5 to 8 in whose favour a subsequent agreement was executed. However, the plaint as initially drafted bore the names of both Manjudevi and her husband. Name of her husband - Binodkumar - i...

Santosh Chandansingh Rawat Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Div ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3543

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition is directed against the order passed on 1-7-2009 by respondent No. 1 - The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, under Section 40 read with Section 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, disqualifying the petitioner from holding the office of Councillor and consequently that of President, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur.2. Facts, which are material for deciding this petition, are as under:The petitioner had been awarded contracts of asphalting of two roads by contracts dated 27-9-2005 and 17-3-2005 by Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. The petitioner had completed the work, but his final bills remained to be paid as on 23-2-2007 for want of funds.3. The petitioner filed nomination for being elected as Councillor from 36-Kelzar Chinchala constituency. One Subhash Bukkawar objected to petitioner's nomination on 26-2-2007 on the ground that the petitioner was a contractor of Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, and had received remune...

Gilbs Computer Limited (Formerly Gold Fish Computers P. Ltd.) Under Co ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Bom)19; [2009]317ITR159(Bom); [2009]184TAXMAN342(Bom)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The principal question that arises for determination in this petition is what are the court fees payable by the assessee in preferring an appeal to Appellate Tribunal under Section 253(6) of the Income Tax Act which hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act'. On behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel has submitted as under:3. The petitioner had filed its return of income for assessment year 200304 on 1st December 2003 in which return it claimed that it was entitled to carry forward a loss of Rs. 19,24,93,890/. The Petitioner's assessment was completed under Section 143(3) by Respondent No. 2 by his order dated 17th February 2006 by which order Respondent No. 2 determined the business loss incurred by the Petitioner at Rs. 7,18,78,768/and the longterm capital loss at Rs. 1,82,19,212/aggregating Rs. 9,00,97,980. In making the assessment Respondent No. 2 disallowed the Petitioner's claim for interest to the extent of Rs. 11,98,97,222...

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Auto Comp Corporation

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)25VST30(Bom)

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this application under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act') the applicant, Commissioner of Sales Tax, prays that the Sales Tax Tribunal be directed to draw a statement of cases and refer the following questions of law to the determination of this Court, viz.,(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that the activity of manufacture and supply of 'flange assembly' to Telco carried out by M/s. Auto Comp Corporation is not a transaction of 'sale' as contemplated under Section 2(28) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that the activity of manufacture and supply of 'flange assembly' is a sale under Section 2(1) of the Maharashtra Sales Tax on the Transfer of Property in Goods involved in the Execution of Works Contracts (Re-enacted) Act, ...

Shri. Pandurang Laxman Ghadge Vs. M/S. Shreyas Builders and Developers ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) This appeal filed by the Appellant/Org.Complainant is directed against the order dated 29/11/2008 in consumer complaint No.53/2008 Shri.Pandurang Laxman Ghadge v/s.M/s.Shreyas Builders and Developers, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Central Mumbai (Forum below in short). 2) In the instant cases Appellant/Org.Complainant had entered into an agreement to purchase flat, and paid Rs.25,000/- as earnest money on 21/03/2005. The dispute arose and therefore, this consumer complaint is filed. Forum below allowed the complaint and directed to Opponent to refund part of consideration of Rs.25,000/- along with interest and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service, and mental agony. In addition to it, Rs.5,000/- as cost were also awarded. Being not satisfied with the award passed this appeal is preferred by the Org. Complainant. 3) Appellant/Org.Complainant alleged that he has pai...