Mumbai Court August 2009 Judgments

Balaram S/O Dayaram (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives Motilal B ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR490

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by original plaintiffs whose suit for possession of 2 acres land out of survey No. 10/2 and mesne profit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 157 of 1977 though decreed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kannad, on 5.8.1988 said judgment and decree is reversed by learned II Additional District Judge, Aurangabad in Regular Civil Appeal No. 193 of 1988 decided on 17.1.1990.2. It is necessary to refer to original pleadings of the parties and decisions of the courts before we come to the substantial questions of law which arise in this second appeal.3. Original Plaintiff Balaram s/o Dayaram filed suit for possession of 2 acres of land out of survey No. 10/2 totally admeausring 8 acres 2 gunthas, and for mesne profit for past three years alleging that respondent defendant had no concern with the eastern side 2 acres 3 gunthas land out of said survey No. 10/2 situated at Nachanwel, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad and the defendant ma...

Shri Yogesh Madhav Thombare Vs. Shri Vyavstapak Vyapari Sahakari Patsa ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Order: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This is an appeal filed by the original complainant whose complaint was dismissed by the District Consumer Forum, Satara by its judgement and order dated 29/4/2009 passed in consumer complaint no.72/2009. 2. On merits, we are finding that complainant had applied for loan of Rs.8 lakhs with O.P.no.1- Vyapari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. O.P.nos.2 to 16 are the Directors of the said Pat Sanstha. Loan was applied on 15/2/2006 and according to complainant, he had made compliance of paper work, but despite the documents produced the O.Ps did not bother to sanction the loan and therefore, he alleged that he suffered huge loss and as such, he filed consumer complaint for recovering loss of Rs.1,45,800/- and interest thereon of Rs.96,183/- and also claimed Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as cost. 3. O.Ps filed written statement at Exhibit 23 and denied the allegations made by the complainant. They denied most of the a...

Ashok S/O Balaji Biradar Vs. Mahesh Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj211

S.S. Shinde, J.1. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad in 216 of 1996. 2. The background facts of the case are as under: The petitioner herein preferred the appeal before the School Tribunal against the termination of his services. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Clerk in the year, 1994. He had served continuously for a period of two years on the post of Clerk. The Education Officer respondent No. 3 has accorded approval to his appointment.3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 Secretary, Mahesh Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Udgir told him that if he is not in a position to pay Rs. 50,000/-then he should resign. It is further case of the petitioner that the Secretary pressurized the petitioner to resign since he was not able to pay Rs. 50,000/-. Respondent No. 1 forcefully took resignation of the petitioner on the Bond Paper of Rs. 20/-which w...

Balasaheb Shamrao Salunkhe, Decd. thru' Lilavati B. Salunkhe and Ors. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj141

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The First Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 224 of 1987. The Tribunal while allowing the claim has directed that the compensation of Rs. 82,000/-inclusive of the compensation on account of no fault liability together with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the Petition was payable to the claimants i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the present First Appeal. However, the Tribunal has directed that the amount shall be paid jointly and severally by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the claim petition i.e. the appellants herein. The claim petition was dismissed against respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein, absolving the Insurance Company of any liability for payment of compensation.2. The facts giving rise to the present First Appeal are as follows:3. Mr. Yashwant Jadhav was working with the Jan Seva Dudh Utpadak Purvatha Sahakari Society Ltd., Kasbe Digraj. He...

Pawan Hans Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR495

1. By this petition, the petitioner, which is a Government Company, challenges the Notification dated 4th July, 1997 issued by the Government of India in exercise of its power under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity). By that Notification, the Central Government has prohibited the employment of contract labour in the works which are mentioned in the Notification on the establishment of petitioner Pawan Hans Ltd. With effect from the date of publication of the Notification. The works include-1) Canteen Services; 2) House Keeping; 3) Electrical Maintenance; 4) Plumbing; 5) Gardening and Horticulture and 6) Pump Operation. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioners attacked the validity of the Notification on two grounds. Firstly, according to him, the Central Government could not have taken into consideration the opinion expressed in favour of issuance of the Notificatio...

Mr. Pakash Vasant Keni Vs. the Chairman/Secretary Bhanu Chs Ltd., Behi ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard complainant-Mr. Prakash Vasant Keni in person. Looking to the prayers made in the prayer clauses in Para 8 of the complaint, we are finding that the reliefs claimed by him against Co-op. Housing Society and its office bearers cannot be granted by us. The main prayer of the complainant is to quash transfer documents made by the Society in favour of some other persons behind back of complainant. So, he is required to file either a civil suit or a dispute in Co-op. Court against the O.Ps. This cannot be a consumer dispute. As such, we pass the following order:- Order: 1. Complaint is returned to the complainant for filing a legal action either in Co-op. Court or Civil Court, as he deems fit and proper. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the complainant....

Sau. Laxmi W/O Vijay Verma Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Se ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj816

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Considering the nature of controversy, we have heard parties finally. Resignation letter dated 29/12/2008 submitted by present respondent No. 6 is found to be not signed by him in presence of respondent No. 3 Collector and, therefore, not in conformity with provisions of Section 41(2) of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965; hereinafter referred to as 1965 Act. This finding recorded in favour of respondent No. 6 in his statutory revision by respondent No. 2 Additional Commissioner Amravati has been maintained by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3167 of 2009 vide judgment dated 6/8/2009. That writ petition was filed by present Appellant who came to be elected in byelection in vacancy caused because of acceptance of said resignation by respondent No. 3 Collector and she has been later on elected as President of respondent No. 4 Municipal Council.2. Before proceeding further it is advantages to reproduce abov...

Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Under the Companies Act, 1956 Vs. the Commis ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3268; (2009)226CTR(Bom)221; 2009(242)ELT168(Bom); [2009]18STJ345; 2009[15]STR657; [2009]22STT130; (2009)25VST473(Bom)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. The Appeal was admitted on the following questions:(a) Whether services of advertising and marketing procured by the Appellants in respect of advertisements for aerated waters are covered by the definition of the words 'input services' as defined in Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, when admittedly the Appellants manufacture concentrates exclusively used for the manufacture of the respective aerated waters which are advertised by the Appellants ?b. Whether the advertisement or sales promotion of aerated waters undertaken by manufacturer of concentrate is covered by the inclusive part of the definition of 'input service' contained in Rule2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 20042. The main question which is therefore, required to be considered, in the present Appeal, is whether the Appellants, who are manufacturers of non-alcoholic beverage bases (concentrates) are eligible to avail credit of the service-tax paid on advertising services, sales promotion, m...

Topstar Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly, Urvi Chemicals and Allied Indu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)225CTR(Bom)351

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:Whether the Tribunal's observations that the A.O. may consider the applicability of the provision of Section 14A of the Act go beyond its jurisdiction?2. Mr. Sahadevan, advocate appearing for Revenue waives service.3. Both the parties agreed that the appeal be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. That is how this appeal is heard finally.Submissions4. Mr. Mistry, learned Counsel for appearing for the appellant submits that the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings had made a query in respect of disallowance of expenditure attributable to the exempted dividend income in view of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). The said query was answered and appropriate submissions were made. The assessing officer did not persue the matter further. He further submits that in the assessm...

Shobharam Budhaji Bhagat Vs. Parbatabai W/O Mayaram Bangadkar Legal Re ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj45

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. These three appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of a common judgment delivered by the Additional district judge, Bhandara. The original defendants are the appellants.2. The facts giving rise to the appeals are as follows Respondent No. 3 Vithoba instituted three suits against three purchasers of the plot No. 53, 54 and 55. The plaintiff purchased one acre of land from out of survey No. 83/3 from one Bhaskarrao Zinzarde by registered saledeed dated 6/5/1978. After the plaintiff purchased the said one acre of land, he applied to the revenue authority for conversion of the said agricultural land into nonagriculture. Twenty four plots were carved out of the said one acre of land. Similarly, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also purchased one acre land each out of the same survey number. They had also applied for conversion of their lands into nonagriculture. Permission was granted. In the year 1991 there was, however,...