Mumbai Court July 2009 Judgments

A.C. Nealsen Org-marg Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009[16]STR259

ORDER1. P.C. Rule: Heard forthwith.2. Considering the judgment of this Court in Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India Writ Petition No. 1449 of 2006 decided on 11th December 2008 : 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.) : TIOL-633-HC-MUM-ST, the learned Tribunal has misdirected itself in law in not granting waiver insofar as demand of service tax with interest payable thereon is concerned. In para 17 of the judgment, this Court has observed as under:17. Reliance is placed on the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) quoted above for justifying the levy of service tax for the period from 16-8-2002. Perusal of the above quoted Rule 2(d)(iv) shows that by that provision a person liable for paying the service tax was defined to mean in relation to any taxable service provided by a person who is non-resident or is from outside India to a person receiving taxable service in India. Apart from the fact that this rule is contrary to the provisions of Section 68 and other provisions of the Act,...

Manager Lokmitra Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Sangli and Others Vs. ...

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 filed against the so called order or observation dated 16/3/2009 passed on an application dated 16/3/2009 in execution application no.139/2008 by Chandrakant Anandrao Sapkal and others. In the said application revisionists tried to inform the Forum that they have paid the amount as per award passed and requested to produce on record copies of challans in proof of such payment. It is observed, as per the impugned observation that revisionists did not make payment as per the award and it is also observed that Judgement Debtors should make the payment as per the award or failing which, action under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act for brevity) would be initiated. We find the revision for such observations is not maintainable. If the action as mentioned for execution under section 27 of the Act is undertaken, revisionists can very well while giving reply to the show cause ...

Shri Vinayak Laxman Lakare Vs. Ms. Kiran Prabhakar Kekane, Nigadi, Pun ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This appeal is preferred by original complainant, being not satisfied with the impugned order dated 29/6/2007 passed in consumer complaint no.243/2006 Mr.Vinayak Laxman Lakare v/s. Ms.Kiran Prabhakar Kekane and another passed by Additional District Consumer Forum, Pune. 2. Appellant/org.complainant agreed to purchase a flat and entered into an Agreement accordingly with respondent/org.O.P.no.1 and out of the price agreed, paid Rs.1 lakh and further paid Rs.50,000/- towards the stamp duty. Complainant intended to take a house loan from HDFC bank. However, loan could not be sanctioned to him since the documents were not supplied by respondent/O.P.no.1. Seeing the non payment of the consideration, O.P. terminated the agreement. Consumer complaint is filed thereafter. 3. After hearing both the sides, Forum below partly allowed the complaint and directed O.Ps to refund Rs.1 lakh received as a part consideration and also awarded Rs....

Smt. Shakuntala Wd/O Mulchand Yadav and ors. Vs. Deputy Conservator of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2941

A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2004, made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Amravati in W.C.A. No. 3/2002, rejecting the application (Exh.1), the present appeal was filed in this Court by the claimants. 2. Heard learned Counsel for appellants, who argued that the appellants were entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,32,580/-as claimed in the application but the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation upheld the stand of the respondents that amount of Rs. 1,69,510/-only was payable as the amendment to Sections 4 and 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act,1923, made by Act No. 30 of 1995 w.e.f. 15.9.1995 was not applicable in the case of the appellants, which is contrary to the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Asokan reported in 1997 (1) CLR 1039, in which reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 16904 to 16909, decided on 6.11.1996 between New India Assur...

Hislop Education Society Through Its Secretary Ms Anna D/O. Yashwant M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3040; 2009(6)MhLj419

R.C. Chavan, J.1. These petitions are directed against judgment of the learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal No. TN3 of 1996, whereby the Tribunal allowed the appeal of respondent No. 2, set aside respondent No. 2's removal from service, ordering his reinstatement in the post of Principal from the date of impugned order of removal dated 18.09.1992 with all consequential benefits.2. The facts, which are material for deciding these petitions are as under :The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3075 of 1996 is old governing body of Hislop Education Society, foundation society of Hislop College at Nagpur. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2174 of 1996 is new government body. Respondent No. 2 was selected and appointed as Principal of Hislop College on 01.10.1989 and was confirmed as such on 23rd October, 1990.3. On 01.11.1987 elections of Hislop Education Society were held for the period from 01.11.1987 to 31.10.1990 at which Rt.Rev Vinod Peter was ele...

Scantec (India) Private Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Shri S.K. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3893; (2010)ILLJ477Bom

S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. Heard Shri Chhabra, advocate for petitioner and Shri Mehadia, advocate for respondent No. 3. None present for the respondent No. 1 & 2.2. Petitioner has challenged the order of Authority under Minimum Wages Act 1948 and the Regional Labour (C) Nagpur dated 15.1.1998 by which the petitioner was ordered to deposit the difference of wages of Rs. 1,27,530/- and compensation equal to fifty percent of the difference of wages amounting to Rs. 63,765/- towards payment due to employees under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act.3. Facts leading to this petition are thus-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) had initiated proceedings against two firms namely: 1] Shri S.K. Arora, Managing Director, M/s Scantec (I) Pvt. Limited (Behind Sadiq Nagar Market), New Delhi 110049 and 2] Shri D.K. Nandi, Executive Director, M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Sampriti Nagar, Ring Road, P.O. Uppalwadi, Nagpur 440026 in Application No. N-47(54)/97-CA. The petition was filed un...

Mr. Saeed Sohail Sheikh S/O Mr. Sohail Mehmood Sheikh and ors. Etc. Vs ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3748; 2009(6)MhLj287

Bilal Nazki, J.1. All these writ petitions raise same questions and relate to the same incident. For the purpose of facts, we are taking Criminal Writ Petition No. 1377 of 2008 as it is more comprehensive than the other petitions. The writ petitions have been filed either by the prisoner or the person interested in their welfare. The prisoners are involved in some serious offences.2. In this writ petition, which is filed on behalf of Mohd. Sohail Mehmood Sheikh, the son of the prisoner has stated that while in Bombay Central Prison, on several occasions prisoner was pressurized to become an approver by the Anti Terrorism Squad with the help of Jail Authorities. The prisoner complained to various authorities, he suffered mental agony, physical harm and abuse from Mrs. Swati Sathe, the Superintendent and Jailor Mr. Govind Patil.3. On 28th June, 2008, Sohail and other 27 prisoners were brutally, inhumanly and savagely beaten up by the Jail authorities along with other convicts and gangste...

Vijaykumar Son of Prithvirajji Panpalia Vs. Maharashtra State Electric ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2010Bom31

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Considering the nature of controversy, we have heard parties at sufficient length and perused the Judgment dated 21st August, 2008 delivered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2231 of 2008 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by present appellant. Appeal is admitted and heard finally by consent.2. Appellant has filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, before District Judge, Amravati, claiming compensation, alleging that amount offered to him for acquisition of about 41,190 sq.ft. + 13,450 sq.ft. Of land in 1990 is inadequate. The appellant demanded compensation of Rs. 6,00,000-00 [rupees six lakhs only] with 12 per cent interest.3. An objection was raised about payment of Court Fees, and present respondent No. 1 filed application under Order VII, Rule 11, read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, in that respect.4. Learned Principal District Judge, Amravati, vide his Order dated 11th February, 2008 allowed that ap...

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 12 Vs. Ms. Mudera G. Nanawati

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Bom)387

1. Heard. Both parties agree that the issue sought to be raised in this appeal is covered against the revenue by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. HUF of H.H. Late J.M. Scindia reported in : [2008] 300 ITR 193 (Bom). In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ...

Shree Ganesh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Through Its Secretary ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16/12/2008 passed in Execution Application no.39/2007 by District Forum, Ratnagiri (Forum below in short). An award was passed in favour of revisionist/decree holder on 15/06/2006 in consumer complaint no.20/2006. It was an award passed on compromise. It is alleged by the revisionist that the said award was observed in breach by the opposite party/ M/s. Rashmi Homes and Construction Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, execution application is filed. After recording the plea, taking evidence and hearing the parties, the Forum below came to a conclusion that offence under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act for sake of brevity) is not made out and accordingly they dismissed the said execution application. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is preferred by the decree holder. We heard Advocate Ms. Priyadarshani Birje for ...