Mumbai Court July 2009 Judgments

Kuljinder Singh Ahluwalia, Lumiere Cooperative Housing Society Limited ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3022

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. By an order dated 2nd February, 2009, it was directed that this Appeal be heard finally at the stage of admission itself. Hence, Admit. All Respondents waive service. By consent, heard finally at this stage.2. Kuljinder Singh Ahluwalia, Plaintiff (Appellant herein), filed a Suit for declaration that 33,24,400 shares of M/s. Mukat Pipes Limited, Defendant No. 4, Respondent No. 4 herein, are the property of M/s. Muktanandan Corporation, a partnership firmDefendant No. 3, Respondent No. 3 herein, of which the PlaintiffKuljinder Singh Ahluwalia, Defendant No. 1 Smt. Sandeep Kaur Ahluwalia and Defendant No. 2, Ravinder Singh Ahluwalia are the partners in equal share. It was further prayed in the said Suit that the transfer/transmission of the said shares of Defendant No. 4Company in favour of Defendant No. 1 Smt. Sandeep Kaur Ahluwalia be cancelled and also for a permanent injunction to restrain Defendant No. 1 from exercising any rights as a shareholder or receiving...

Girreddi Suryanarayana Reddy Vs. the Securities and Exchange Board of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3124

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Heard. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The Petitioner was appointed as Division Chief (General Stream) by the Securities and Exchange Board of India ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Board' ) on 5th April, 2004. Respondent No. 2 Member of the Board, vide his order dated 6th May, 2004 placed the Petitioner under suspension with immediate effect as departmental inquiry was contemplated against him. This order of suspension was challenged by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 464 of 2005 on various grounds, inter alia, that the same was without jurisdiction and punitive in its contents. Writ Petition No. 464 of 2005 was dismissed by the order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 14th December, 2005. The Petitioner was granted liberty to raise all contentions in his reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 25th April, 2004 before the Competent Authority at an appropriate stage. In the meanwhile, on 6th May, 2004, the...

Shri R.R. Tripathi (Advocate) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Sec ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR513; 2009(111)BomLR3053

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Heard. Rule in both the Writ Petitions. By consent, the rule in both the Writ Petitions made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, both the Petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself.2. In both the above Writ Petitions, the Petitioners primarily question the order of extension of service of the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai, vide order dated 30th May, 2009 Exhibit A. Writ Petition No. 3568 of 2009 had been filed at Aurangabad Bench of this High Court, while Writ Petition Lodging No. 63 of 2009 has been filed at the Principal Bench. Vide order dated 17th June, 2009, both these Petitions were ordered to be listed and heard together as common question of law is raised in these Petitions and somewhat common reliefs are sought. Thus, by this judgment, we will dispose of both the Petitions together.3. The Petitioners in both these Petitions claim to be public spirited persons, one is a Jou...

Shri. Nagnath Dhulappa Ghodake Vs. the Executive Engineer Maharashtra ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Perused the record. An impugned order in the instant case Complainant Shri.Nagnath Dhulappa Ghodake, who is the appellant is not consumer since the energy meter does not stand in his name. Its stands the name of Complainants dead father-Dhulappa Ghodake and nothing has been shown to indicate that Complainant Nagnath steped into shoes of late Dhulappa. Complainant has not got transferred the electricity connection in his name. The complaint, therefore, is not maintainable. Beside that Forum below by reasoned order and discussing the material on record, passed the impugned order. We find that it is case of energy theft. Therefore, considering the decision of the National Commission in the matter of Accounts officer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Assistant Electricity Engineer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Kokar division V/s. Anwar Ali, Proprietor, Pinki Plastic Industrial Area, and Executive Engineer, Gujarat Electric...

Mr. Ganesh Manohar Pai, Karnataka State Vs. Lic Mutual Fund Asset Mana ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) Advocate Mr. M.P. Wamorkar present for Complainant. Opponents waves the notice, Opponent No.1 to 5 present through Advocate Mr. T.J. Pandian who filed Vakalatnama and affidavit in reply. Mr.Komal Singh, Adv. for Opponent No.6-Karvy Computer Share Private Ltd., is also present. Heard both parties. 2) Complaint Ganesh M.Pai and his brother late Dinesh Pai are both enjoys the status of NRI. In the investments made by Dinesh pai, Complainant Ganesh was shown as nominee. It is the case of the complainant that he made investments of Rs.54,21,198.12 ps. in the LIC Mutual Fund from his own income and that is separate property. After death of Dinesh Pai proceedings for obtaining succession certificate were initiated in Civil Court at Kurla. In desperation perhaps, legal heirs of Dienesh Pai tried to block the amount under the investment in question. There is exchange of correspondence on email and as a result thereof, Op...

Chaganlal S/O Girdhari Kundkar Vs. Parmatma Ek Sewak Nagrik Sahakari B ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3117; 2009(6)MhLj463

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition by the workman takes exception to the dismissal of his complaint recording unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, by his impugned order dated 25-11-1998.2. Facts, which are material for deciding this petition, are as under:It is not in dispute that the respondent Co-operative Bank had engaged the services of the petitioner as Daily Wager Clerk since 1-12-1989. It also cannot be disputed that in the period of one year preceding 7-5-1991, the petitioner had put in more than 240 days of continuous service. It was the petitioner's case that he had not been regularized and instead he was retrenched on the ground that he was a surplus employee and that no work was available. He submitted that one Dhargave was recruited by the respondent on 9-10-1991 without offering to him an opportunity of re-employment, thus brea...

Mr. Zelia M. Xavier Fernandes E Gonsalves W/O Mr. Xavier Fernandes Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR74

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith consent. Fresh service on Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 is considered to be not necessary. Heard Advocates. 2. The respondent No. 1 herein submitted application before the Goa State Election Commission seeking disqualification of petitioner herein. 3. In the said application, the respondent No. 1 raised objection that petitioner's husband has a subsisting contract with the Panchayat to which the petitioner has been elected, therefore, she being a wife of the contractor, she be declared as disqualified. 4. The petitioner filed reply accepting the relationship, the fact of contract being in subsistence, but denied that Section 10(f) of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 did contemplate disqualification on this ground and claimed that she should have been personally interested to be declared disqualified. 5. The Commission has passed order on 3.7.2009 disqualifying the petitioner. The Commissioner has recorded the finding which reads as follo...

Mrs. Mangala W/O Sharad Mutha and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra Th ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3186

1. The appellants herein claimed themselves to be the successors intitle as well as in possession of the properties survey Nos. 53/1B, 52/1, 52/2, 133 and 46/2 situated at Chahurna (Bk), Taluka and District Ahmadnagar, from the original defendant Nos. 7 & 8 in Special Civil Suit No. 13/1956 decreed on 13.04.1956 by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmednagar. The appellants are the objectors in Special Darkhast No. 57/1977, to the executability of the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 13/1956. The objections raised by the appellants to the executability of the decree are rejected by the Collector, Ahmednagar vide his order dated 24.12.2007 and also by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar by his order dated 07.01.2008. The appellants preferred writ petition No. 276/2008 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before learned Single Judge challenging the aforesaid orders. The said writ petition is dismissed by the learned Single Judge, in motion ...

Madhukar S/O. Laxman Sahare Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, (i ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj200

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition by a teacher is directed against judgment, dismissing his appeal challenging termination of his services, filed by him before the School Tribunal at Nagpur.2. The facts, which are relevant for deciding this petition are as under:On 22nd July, 1985 an advertisement for the post of High School teachers was issued by respondent No. 2 institution for its school of which respondent No. 3 is Headmaster. The advertisement mentioned that the authorities would give preference to candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Nomadic Tribe. Qualification prescribed for High School teacher was B.A., B. Ed. The petitioner was M.A., B. Ed. He applied in pursuance to the advertisement, was selected and appointed on 05.08.1987. On 04.04.1994 he applied for correction of his seniority. On 02.06.1994 the Education Officer sought seniority list from respondents No. 2 and 3. On 15.09.1994 the petitioner was first placed under suspension and on the same day his services were t...

Atul Bhaurao Khulge Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009[16]STR257; [2010]24STT324

ORDER1. P.C. Rule : Heard forthwith.2. The petition is against the order dated 24th March 2008 whereby the petitioner was directed to determine the correct value of the taxable service and to discharge the amount of service tax along with the amount of interest at the appropriate rates provided under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder, and to file prescribed periodical returns on the basis of the compliance.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that before this order was passed, no show cause notice was issued to him.4. On the last occasion, the matter was adjourned in order to enable the respondents to take instructions. At today's hearing, on behalf of the respondents, learned Counsel on instructions states that he has been informed that there is no record available in the office to show the service of notice on the petitioner.5. Considering the above, in our opinion, the order suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice and fair p...