Mumbai Court August 2009 Judgments

Ku. Saroj Pundlikrao Datir Vs. Dr. Prakash Nandurkar, Secretary, Satch ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomLR13; 2009(6)MhLj235

S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. Heard Shri Anjan De, Advocate, for the petitioner, Shri Suresh Dhole, Advocate, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Shri P.D. Kothari, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition against the respondents for taking action under Section 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The reliefs claimed by the petitioner in this petition are thus-i. take action against the respondents 1 to 4 under the Contempt of Courts Act and punish the contemnors in accordance with the provisions of law; in W.P. No. 3254/07, Order dated 28/9/07 ii. direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner immediately and pay all the back wages forthwith to the petitioner; iii. by an interim order direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and pay the back wages to the petitioner immediately during the pendency of the petition; iv. grant any other relief deemed fit 3. The petition arose out of the proceedings of appeal i...

Dr. Dadasaheb S/O Popatrao Tarte Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3650

A.V. Potdar, J.1. Rule.2. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is finally heard at the stage of admission.3. By the present writ petition under Article 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, initially the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus for direction to the first respondent to decide the appeal challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30th August 2008, with further prayers for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the sonography machine in the light of directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7973/2008 dated 17th December 2008. During pendancy of the writ petition, the prayers were added to quash and set aside the order dated 30/08/2008 passed by the 2nd respondent suspending the registration of Genetic Clinic of the petitioner at (Exh.I, paper book page No. 39) and to quash and set aside the order dated 24/03/2009 (Exh.L at paper book page No. 52) passed by t...

The Commissioner Central Excise Vs. Air Carrying Corp (i) Pvt. Ltd. an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(169)LC143(Bombay)

D.G. Karnik, J.1. This appeal is directed against the common judgement and order dated 9th May 2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') filed by the respondent 1 and its directors.2. The first respondent herein is a Private Limited Company and the second and third respondents are its Directors. The respondent 1 is engaged in the manufacture and production of CTD bars. A show cause cum demand notice was issued to the first respondent by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane-1 proposing recovery of excise duty of Rs. 11,06,430/- alleging clandestine clearance by the respondents 1, 2 and 3 of 471.075 metric tonnes of CTD Bars valued at Rs. 69,15,183/-. The respondent 1 approached the Settlement Commission for settlement vide its application dated 8th July 2004. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, the Joint Commissioner Central Excise issued an addendum/corrigendum dated 19th October 2004 for recover...

Mr. Mukesh Vasudeo Lodhi Vs. the New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Agra Roa ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal is preferred against the order/award dated 21/10/2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No.90/2008 filed on 14/5/2008, Mukesh Vasudev Lodhi V/s. Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Nashik City Branch, Nashik, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik (Forum below in short). There was a theft of Toyota Qualis vehicle bearing No. MH 19 Q 4646 on the night of 28/9/2006. Said vehicle was insured with Respondent/Original O.P. (hereinafter referred as Respondent). Appellant/Original Complainant (hereinafter referred as Appellant) lodged the insurance claim which stood repudiated by the Respondent on the ground that the vehicle was used contrary to the terms of insurance policy, on hire and reward. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Appellant preferred a Consumer Complaint, which was dismissed with the cost of Rs.1,000/- and feeling aggrieved thereby, this Appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Original Compl...

Dr. Dhananjay Pandurang Dingare Vs. Smt. Damayanti Siddheshwar Bhinge

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 01/10/2007 passed in consumer complaint No.102/2006 Smt.Damaynati Siddheshwar Bhinge V/s. Dr. Dhananjay Pandurang Dingare by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Solapur (Forum below in short). Respondent/complainant aged 66 years at the time of filing complaint on 13/03/2006 fell in her house on her hand and as a result of which sustained fracture to the bone of the hand. She was accordingly admitted in the hospital of appellant/O.P.-Dr. Dhananjay Pandurang Dingare (hereinafter referred as appellant) at Pandharpur. She was operated upon her hand by an Orthopaedic Surgeon Dr.Milind Joshi on 16/03/2004. She was given discharge from hospital on 02/04/2004. Post operative care was taken at the hospital of appellant. It is alleged that on 31/03/2004 when wound stitches were not fully dried, the appellant applied plaster of paris (POP in short). Thereafter, respondent complained pain a...

Subhadra Nivrutti Dhere, Vs. Shankar Digambar Dixit, Decd. (Through Lr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR25

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Revision Application No. MRT-SH-III-2-1992 on 12th September, 1994. Shankar Digambar Dixit was the owner of the lands which were part of Survey No. 434 situated at Village Pangaon, Tal. Barshi, Dist. Solapur. The petitioners are the tenants in respect 6th of the said lands. On June, 1961, Shankar Digambar Dixit sought an exemption certificate under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (in short ' the said Act' ). This Application was dismissed by the Tahsildar, Barshi. An Appeal was preferred by the owner which was allowed on 12th December, 1964. The matter was then remanded to the Tahsildar for disposing it of in accordance with law. The proceedings were dismissed again by the Tahsildar and an Appeal was preferred before the Deputy Collector. That Appeal was dismissed on 19th April, 1968 pursuant to which the landlord filed Writ Petition No....

Laxman Bhanu Gavane, Vs. Shashikala Namdeo Kalane and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR23; 2009(6)MhLj151

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this Petition, the petitioners have challenged the Judgment and Order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. MRT/SH/III/2/89 dated 16th April, 1990 and order in the Review Application No. MRT/SH/IX-4/2/90 dated 31st January, 1991.2. This litigation has a chequered history. One Sakhubai Gavane was a certificated landlady under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (in short the said Act). She claimed that she was the landlady for half of 10 acres and 36 gunthas at Survey No. 11 at Village Pothare, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur. The respondents were her tenants. The petitioners herein are the heirs of Sakhubai.3. An application was filed by Sakhubai on 8th January, 1962 under Section 33B of the said Act. That application was rejected by the Tenancy Avval Karkoon on 28th February, 1963 on the ground that Sakhubai could not prove that she required the suit lands for her bonafide personal use and cultivation. Sak...

Bhagwan Natthu Kale (Since Deceased Through L.Rs. Santosh Bhagwan Kale ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR19; 2009(6)MhLj183

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith.2. Heard finally with consent of parties.3. This application for review is filed by the original respondent No. 1 in Second Appeal No. 121 of 1999. A few facts maybe narrated as follows:4. One Sadashiv Kale instituted a suit for specific performance of contract against one Raghoba Dukre. The said contract was entered into on 30.12.1981. The contract related to sell of agricultural field bearing No. 95 having an area of 16.18 acres. The price was settled at Rs. 16,000/- and Raghoba received Rs. 5000/-. Since Raghoba did not execute the sale deed as agreed Sadashiv kale instituted a suit bearing No. 319 of 1982 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Nagpur. The said suit came to be decided on 08.03.1988 and the Court found that plaintiff Sadashiv was entitled to a decree for specific performance. Court also directed the plaintiffs to apply to the concerned authority under Section 89 of the Bombay Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act for ...

Shri Bruno Dias Souza Son of Late Mr. Julio Souza Vs. State of Goa Rep ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj123

A.H. Joshi, J.1. This is an appeal by unsuccessful plaintiff.2. Case proceeds on facts admitted by plaintiff namely:(a) Chief Architect, PWD invited plaintiff to participate in a public competition amongst selected architects, to design High Court Complex for Goa, by sending to them a brief with the site plan and rules of the competition, and by giving a description of the project.(b) The plaintiff was selected as the best entry in the competition.(c) Agreement was signed between the plaintiff and the respondent No. 3 setting out terms of the engagement of services of the appellant.(d) The respondent No. 2 requested the plaintiff to proceed with the assignment, and plaintiff submitted the plan to the respondent No. 2.(e) Certain correspondence was exchanged, meetings were held and minutes have been recorded.(f) Plaintiff raised bill for advance @ 1.5% of cost of project as per schedule of rates.(g) Stage II of working designs and preparation of the estimates was not progressed.(h) Plai...

Deviprabha Nanasaheb Deshmukh Vs. Laxminagar Co-operative Housing Soci ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR157

S.S. Shinde, J.1. This petition is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Secretary, Co-operation Department i.e. respondent No. 6, dated Nil passed by respondent No. 6 in revision petition No. Rev. 27/2001/CR-35/15-C.2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are as under:It is the case of the petitioner that she is member of respondent No. 1 Society. The said society came to be registered on 4.11.1972. Accordingly, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 150/- as against the share. The petitioner purchased three shares of Rs. 50/- each. Respondent No. 1 society issued share certificate No. 346 in favour of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has followed the bylaws of the society and paid amounts from time to time. However, the society respondent No. 1 in its special general meeting dated 26.7.1992 passed resolution No. 7 and cancelled the membership of the petitioner. The society had also issued letter ...