Mumbai Court August 2009 Judgments

Rukhminibai Wd/O Sadhuram Katiyari and Govardhan Sadhuram Katiyari Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4186; 2009(6)MhLj252

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. These two appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment since the substantial questions of law are identical and the dispute is also identical.2. The original plaintiffs have preferred these two appeals they having lost before both the Courts.3. The facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows:A single set of facts is being narrated since the facts are almost identical.Both plaintiffs are the owner of wooden stall 9 X 7 Ft. in an area known as Sindhi Market at Arvi. The said wooden stall is located on the Municipal Land. The said wooden stall was let out by plaintiffs to the defendants. It is their contention that the defendants had agreed to pay rent of Rs. 400/- P.M. The defendants had agreed to vacate the said stall as and when required. The defendants have not being paying the rent. The plaintiff therefore issued a notice to the defendants calling upon the defendants to vacate the said stalls and hand over the possession. Defendants did not vacate, hence...

inter Gold (India) Ltd. Company Incorporated Under the Provisions of t ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)25VST588(Bom)

1. By the present petition the petitioners seek to challenge the order of assessment whereby the petitioners have been held liable to pay Purchase Tax (Purchase Tax) on gold purchased from MMTC under a Replenishment License under Section 13AA of the B.S.T. Act. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the action of the respondents in charging purchase tax on a vehicle purchased for the use of its employees as also consequential charging of interest under Section 36(3)(b) and penalty under Section 36(2)(c) (Explanation 1) as also penalty under Section 36(4A) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act.2. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners filed their reply to the said show cause notice on 3rd October, 1997 denying their liability to pay purchase tax on purchase of gold. There was no specific denial in so far as purchase tax on the purchase of vehicle. The A.O., was pleased to pass an order of assessment which was served on the petitioner on 28th November, 1995.3. The petiti...

Shantilal Lalchand Changede and ors. Vs. Prasad Oak and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj584

S.B. Mhase, J.1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2. The Petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 15th April 2009 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, West Ward, Bombay. By the said order, the Respondent No. 1 exercising power under Section 102 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the said Act') has appointed one Shri. Ashok Pagare, the Assistant Cooperative Officer, KWest Ward, Bombay as an interim liquidator of the Cool Home Versova Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. the Petitioner No. 6 herein.3. At the outset we would like to clarify that normally we would not have entertained the present petition, since the order under challenge is only an interim order and the parties could approach the Deputy Registrar under Sub-section (2) of Section 102 of the said Act before the final order of liquidation is passed. But we have decided t...

Torrent Power Ltd., Old Agra Road, Anjur Phata, Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) This appeal arises out of order/award dated 07/03/2009 passed in Consumer complaint No.299/2008 Shyamprasad S.Bandivadekar V/s Torrent Power Ltd., passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Thane (Forum below in short). Respondent /Org. Complainant (hereinafter referred as Complainant). 2) The undisputed facts are that Respondent/Org. Complainant- Shyamprasad S. Bandivadekar is a consumer of Appellant/Org. O.P.- Torrent Power Ltd. Appellant had taken over the area from MSEB (Maharashtra State Electricity Board) w.e.f. 26/01/2007. Meters of the old consumers were replaced in a phased manner. The bills were issued as per the actual reading. The first bill covering period from December, 2006 to 10th February, 2007 was issued on 10/02/2007 for 490 units and subsequent bi-monthly bills were issued as under: a) 10/02/2007 490 units b) 10/04/2007 323 units c) 10/06/2007 232 units d) 11/08/2007 56 units e) 11/10/2007 682 u...

M/S. Villayati Ram Mittal Builders, Office at Keshav Kunj, Navi Mumbai ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: 1. These appeals arises out of one and the same order/award and hence stands disposed of by this common order. 2. Shri Rajesh Darshanlal Bindra/org.complainant filed consumer complaint no.320/2003 on 16/10/2003 against the opposite party / builder-developer/ M/s.Villayati Ram Mittal builders before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- Mumbai Suburban putting a grievance that in a flat purchased by him from the opposite party, substandard material was used though it was promised that it being a company ISO 9002 certified, quality of material would be maintained. There were water seepage from the walls of living room, bed room and kitchen. Opposite party did not provide building with fire prevention system, marble flooring developed cracks in the living room, bedroom and kitchen. Water proofing work of the terrace is defective. The lifts provided were of sub standard quality and no separate energy meter was provided. Complainant/Raj...

Shri Shaikh Jamalchand Vs. Maharashtra Seva Sangh Through Its Secretar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3721

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 21st March, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 5556 of 1999, whereby the decision of the Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, Pune Region, Solapur dated 8th September, 1999 in Appeal No. 70 of 1997 has been set aside. The School Tribunal by the said decision had allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation, Act, 1977. The Tribunal accepted the stand of the Appellant that the order impugned in the Appeal resulted in reducing the Appellant from full time teacher to part-time teacher and from part-time teacher to teacher on clock-hour basis. The said order was quashed and set aside being illegal and instead it was ordered that the Appellant be reinstated as full time teacher in Higher Secondary School since 1.4.1994 and that the Appellant would be entitled to get s...

Maytas Infra Limited Vs. Utility Energytech and Engineers Pvt.Ltd. and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3693

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Appeal admitted. Respondents waive service. 2. By consent of parties, heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 29th April 2009 in Arbitration Petition Lod. No. 366 of 2009. This Arbitration Petition was filed by the Appellant (Original Petitioner) invoking powers of the Learned Single Judge under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Act for short). 4. From the record it appears that the learned Judge initially granted an ad-interim ex parte order on 17th April 2009 in favour of the appellant original petitioner. This ad-interim order was continued after the respondent No. 1 (contesting respondent) appeared and sought time. Thereupon, the Arbitration Petition was placed before the learned Single Judge and he considered the request made by the appellant for co...

Prabhavanti Mulji Shah and Kiran Mulji Shah Vs. Municipal Commissioner ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3666

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive notice. By consent, Rule called out and heard. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are essentially questioning the legality and validity of the Notice dated 19/4/2008 issued by the Assistant Commissioner G/North ward of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in terms of Section 89 read with Section 165 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) and the order passed by the said Authority dated 6/8/2008 directing the Petitioners to vacate the structure standing on Final Plot No. 878 & 879 of TPS-IV Mahim area and hand over the same to the Corporation forthwith failing which demolition action under Section 90 of the Act would be initiated in relation thereto. 3. The Petitioners have adverted to chequered history both with regard to the ownership, right, title and intere...

Nagar Yuwak Shikshan Sanstha Through Its Secretary and Yeshwantrao Cha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2010Bom1; 2009(6)MhLj85

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for rival parties.2. By the present petition, the petitioners have put to challenge the order dated 1.9.2008 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Vidarbha Region, Nagpur, in Appeal No. 1772/07 holding that the Right to Information Act, 2005 is applicable to the petitioners.3. In support of writ petition, Mr. Shashank Manor, learned Counsel for petitioners, vehemently argued that petitioner No. 1 which is a Public Trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act and petitioner No. 2 - an unaided Engineering College do not at all fall within the meaning of definition of `Public Authority' as defined under Right to Information Act. He argued that none of these petitioners were created or established or constituted by any law made by the State legislature, as assumed by the State Information Commissioner in his impugned order. Further, none of the petitioners have bee...

Gulam Mohmad Khan S/O Hakim Miya Khan Thr. L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Gulam Na ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj954

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This Second Appeal is filed by the original plaintiff who lost in the First Appellate Court since the First Appellate Court set aside the decree passed by the trial Court. The parties herein after are referred to as plaintiff and defendant.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: Plaintiffs are sons and daughter of one Hakimmiya son of Rasulkhan who died in the year 1931. Hakimmiya's father Rasulkhan was the original owner of the suit property and he died in the year 1917 leaving behind him a widow, three sons and a daughter. Few years after the death of Rasulkhan his widow died and the property came into the hands of three sons and daughter namely Sahebkhan, Hakimkhan, Ahamad khan and Munirbi. The three sons inherited 28.56 Ps. Share in the entire property of Rasulkhan while Munirbi inherited 14.28 Ps. Share. Three sons of Rasulkhan were joint in estate but separate in mess. They were therefore occupying separate portion of the property. Youngest son...