Mumbai Court July 2009 Judgments

Miss Gitanjali Bharat Sangale Vs. the Maharashtra State Board of Secon ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)6BOMLR161

A.V. Potdar, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the action of respondent No. 1 of debarring her performance in HSC examination up to October 2009 and seeking directions to declare her result for the examination conducted in the month March 2009.3. The facts, which gave rise to file the present petition can be summarized as follows-a) The petitioner is a 12th Standard student of respondent No. 2 College in science faculty for the year 2008-09. The petitioner suffers from permanent disability of amblyopic blindness to the extent of 40%. Examination for Chemistry-I paper was scheduled on 04.03.2009. According to the petitioner due to her illness, she reached 5 minutes late to the examination hall. Thereafter answer sheet was provided to her on which she put her serial number. However, ...

Bharat Tukaram Bhalke, Chairman, Shree Vitthal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj16

S.B. Mhase, J.1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2. The Petitioners who are the directors of the Vithal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited situated at Pandharpur, District: Solapur have approached this Court challenging the show cause notice issued by the Respondent No. 1 who is the Regional Director of Sugar, Pune Division, Pune. The said notice has been issued by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 [for short 'the said Act.'].3. We are constrained to interfere in the matter at the stage of show-cause notice in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and on account of the conduct of the Respondent No. 1 and the manner in which the matter is being dealt with under Section 78 of the said Act. The Respondent No. 1 who is the Regional Joint Director of Sugar, Pune Division is joined as a party respondent by name.4. The facts disclose that the first show cause notice under Section...

Maharashtra Academy of Engineering and Educational Research Vs. Direct ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]319ITR399(Bom)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent of the parties, heard forthwith.2. The petitioner is a Public Trust whose sole activity is of running educational institutions. Upto A.Y. 198889, the income of the petitioner was exempted under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 10(22) was omitted by Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 with effect from 1st April 1999, i.e. from A.Y. 1999-2000 and the exemption for the income of an educational institution like the petitioner Trust was provided in the Section 10(23C)(vi). The said Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, as applicable for A.Y. 1999-2000, reads as under:Incomes not included in total income.10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included.(23C) any income received by any person on behalf of(i) ....(vi) any university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for ...

Smt. Sarojini Gangadhar Kulkarni, Through Her Constituted Attorney Dr. ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19/1/2009 passed on application Exhibit J for amendment in consumer complaint no.171/2004 Pravin G. Joshi and others v/s. Smt. Sarojini Gandadhar Kulkarni and others. Amendment application was allowed and feeling aggrieved thereby, original O.P.no.1- Smt. Sarojini Gandadhar Kulkarni preferred this revision petition. 2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Datar-Advocate for the revisionist and Mr. Suhas Navale-Advocate for the opponent nos.1 to 4. Other opponents are absent. Perused the record. 3. In the instant case, original complainants were allowed to amend their pleadings. At this stage, we prefer not to go into the legality of the order passed or necessity of the amendment or whether the relief covering the amendment could be claimed as a consumer dispute. The law is well settled that in a consumer dispute, Consumer Fora cannot go beyond the four corners of section 14 o...

Shri T.M. Baburajiv, Hill Grange Co-op.Hsg.Society Ltd., Thane Vs. M/S ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 17/11/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.557/2007 Shri T.M.Baburajiv v/s. M/s.Hiranandani Properties Pvt.Ltd. by District Consumer Forum, Thane. 2. Heard Mr.Vishal Patil-Advocate for the appellant. Perused the record. 3. In the instant case, appellant has purchased a flat from respondent/O.P.no.1 M/s.Hiranandani Properties Pvt. Ltd. Respondent/org.O.P.no.2 is the Society of the flat purchasers. After purchase of the flat, appellant also purchased a stilt parking from O.P.no.1 and received possession thereof. Subsequently, a dispute arose and O.P.no.2 did not recognize the said sale of stilt parking in favour of the appellant. There is a resolution passed in the General Body meeting also. Consequently this consumer complaint is filed for refund of money paid for parking and also for injunction. Complaint stood dismissed. Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferre...

M/S. Neptune Construction L.B.S. Road, Next to Mangatram Petrol Pump B ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr. D. Chaurasiya -Advocate for the appellant. He files withdrawal pursis. Taken on record. Hence the order:- Order: 1. Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. 2. Amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited under provisions of Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 be refunded to the appellant. 3. Misc.application nos.907 and 908/2009 stands disposed of as infructuous. 4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Shri Adi Dubash Office No.1, Gamadia Colonoy, Mumbai Vs. Shri Vinod K. ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr.J.Muzumdar-Advocate h/f.Mr.Jani-Advocate for the revisionist. Directions issued by this Commission on 17/4/2009 are not at all followed and complied with. Revisionist is not vigilant to prosecute the revision petition. Hence the order. Order: 1. Revision petition stands dismissed for non compliance of the directions given earlier and for want of effectively prosecuting the revision petition. 2. Misc.application stands disposed of. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Shri Shivaji Namdeo Jadhav and Others Vs. Shri Bhaskarrao Narayan Kada ...

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 17/11/2008 passed on application Exhibit 60 to add revisionists as a party to the execution proceedings in execution application no.105/2007, Bhaskarrao Narayan Kadam and another v/s. Mukta Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., by District Consumer Forum, Satara. Forum below allowed the application and feeling aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is filed. Heard Mr.V.S.Talkute -Advocate for the revisionists. Mr.D.N.Rananavare -Advocate for the opponent nos.1and2 and Mr.Shailesh Chavan-Advocate for rest of the opponents. Peruse the record. In the instant case, by passing the impugned order, Forum below crossed its jurisdictional limits. The execution forum cannot go beyond the award passed and to decide on itself that revisionists are also liable for the decreetal dues. Under the circumstances, Forum below committed an error per se. We hold accordingly and pa...

Mrs. Mangala Marutrao Taware Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Regional ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This appeal is preferred against the order/award dated 5/2/2009 passed in consumer complaint no.205/2004, Mrs. Mangala Marutrao Taware v/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others passed by District Consumer Forum, Pune. Consumer complaint is filed consequent to the insurance claim made when the vehicle bearing no.MH-12-YA-5995 met with an accident on 25/6/2003. Said claim was yet to be settled or even repudiated. Holding accordingly that the complaint is premature, Forum below dismissed the complaint and feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred. 2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Chavan -Advocate for the appellant. Perused the record. 3. There is delay of 18 days in filing the appeal. Delay is attributed to the negligence on the part of legal firm handling the matter. For the negligence of the lawyer, party should not be allowed to suffer and, therefore, holding that delay is satisfactorily explained, we condone ...

Manish D. Shah Vs. C.M. Betgeri, Commissioner of Income Tax,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Bom)242; [2009]318ITR397(Bom); [2009]185TAXMAN247(Bom)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner by the present petition had raised the following contentions:(1) That the interest under Section 23B can be claimed upto the date of intimation under Section 143(1) or regular assessment under Section 143(3).(2) Whether the interest under Section 243B can be charged along with interest under Section 220.(3) As interest by its very nature is compensatory whether charging of interest for late filing of returns being arbitrary is consequently unconstitutional.2. A few facts may now be set out. 1st April, 1989 and 31st March, 1990 is the Previous Year for the assessment year 1990-91. The petitioner paid some advance tax by instalments on 14th September, 1989, 14th December, 1989 and 31st March, 1990. The due date for filing the return was 30th November, 1990. The return was filed on 31st March, 1992.In terms of Section 143(1)(a) interest payable under Section 234B is at the rate of 2% from 1st April, 1990 to 31st March, 1992 Notice was issued on 7th ...