Mumbai Court August 2009 Judgments

Ku. Sangita D/O Arvindrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through I ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj968

S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. Heard Shri Kilor, Advocate, for the petitioner, Shri Adgokar, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Shri Loney, Advocate, for Respondent No. 4, Shri Mahalle, Advocate, for Respondent No. 5. None present for Respondent No. 6 (Formal Party)2. By this petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is taking exception to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur, in Appeal No. A-3/1996, by which the appeal of the appellant i.e. present petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner, appellant therein, had asked for continuation in the post on which she was appointed, which was reserved for certain categories, by setting aside the termination. It is necessary to note certain observations at this stage recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur, which read thus1. This purports to be an appeal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994, though it also needs ...

Diamond Education Society's Shri Chhaganrao Bhujbal Aurvedic Medical C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR499

R.K. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the respective counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.2. This petition challenges order dated 23rd of September 2008 at Exh. J to the petition passed by the respondent No. 4, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Ayurved Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani Sidha and Homeopathy, Government of India, New Delhi, informing the petitioner that after careful consideration of the case under the provisions of the Section 13A of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'IMCC Act') and the relevant regulations made thereunder, it has been decided that the approval of the Central Government cannot be given to the Diamond Education Society, Jalana, Maharashtra, to start the proposed Shri Chaganrao Bhujbal Ayurvedic College at Jalana in view of the reasons explained in para 8(i) to (vii).3. The facts leading to the case are as under:The petitioner is a public trust duly registered und...

The Ratnakar Bank Ltd., Regd. Office Kolhapur Vs. M/S. Neliton Systems ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This consumer complaint relates to supply of hardware and software as well as their installation at Sangli branch of the complainant under their computerization scheme. For this purpose, complainant entered into an agreement with the National Radio and Electronics Co. Ltd. (Known as NELCO). The work was to be executed in three phases. Softwares to be supplied (i.e. automation solution) was known as CIBEX. This software was already installed and tested at other branch of the complainant at Thane. Total cost of the project was Rs.15,25,000/-. Agreement was accordingly executed in the beginning of the year 1994 as reflected from the correspondence placed on record. First of such correspondence is dated May 27, 1994, which is a letter from NELCO to the Branch Manager of Sangli branch of the complainant. 2. Initially there was a complaint about working of the hardware supplied, namely, UPS and on the count that all the Nodes were n...

Onida Service Centre, (Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd.) Zadgaon, Ratnagir ...

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 23/12/2008 passed in Consumer complaint No.62/2008 Mr. Nikhil V.Gangan V/s M/s. Samarth Enterprises and another, passed by District Consumer Forum, Ratnagiri (Forum below in short). Respondent /Org. Complainant (hereinafter referred as Complainant). 2) The undisputed facts are that Respondent/Org. Complainant- Nikhil Gangan had purchased Split AC of Onida Company for a consideration of Rs.18,000/- on 15/03/2008 through its authorized dealer-Org.O.P.No.1-M/s.Samarh Enterprises. Appellant/Org.O.P.No.2-Onida Service Centre is authorize service centre of Onida company and attended the complaints regarding the Split AC in question. 3) It is the complaint of Respondent/Org. Complainant Nikhil Gangan that the AC purchased was giving unbearable sound and therefore, he made a complaint. Org. O.P. replaced the AC. However, with new replaced AC also, the complaint continues. Therefore, again...

Ashok Kumar S/O Dulichand Sharma Vs. Shri Jethmal Motilal Jedia S/O Mo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3727; 2009(6)MhLj629

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is first appeal by the plaintiff. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows One Motilal Jadia was uncle of the plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of late Motilal Jadia. The original plaintiff Dulichand is dead. Dulichand - the original plaintiff came to Nagpur in 1970 to join the business run by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. While the plaintiff started working with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in their business, the plaintiff's family was at Calcutta. Plaintiff Dulichand while at Nagpur was residing with defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Plaintiff Dulichand was trying to build up his career in the jewellery business. However, up to the age nof 49 he had not secured any accommodation for the family. He, therefore, decided to give top priority for securing residential accommodation for himself and his family. Due to his tremendous labour and industry, the plaintiff Dulichand was a...

N.V. Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3397

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. In all theses petitions the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Tax on Lotteries Act, 2006 has been challenged and therefore, all these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by common order. 2. The petitioners are the distributors of lottery tickets for sale in State of Maharashtra, of various States organizing, conducting and promoting their own lotteries in India. The Respondent-State Government is also organizing, conducting and promoting its own lotteries. It is submitted that the State of Maharashtra firstly levied and imposed sales tax on lottery tickets of the lotteries organized by the other State Governments by treating the lottery tickets as goods. However, when it was held that lottery tickets are not goods, the sales tax imposed on lottery tickets was withdrawn by the State Government and the Maharashtra Tax on Lotteries Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act') was enacted. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the legi...

Alsecure and Protection Services (i) and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4111

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. In this group of writ petitions mainly two reliefs are claimed. First relief that is claimed is that in view of the enactment and coming into force of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) 2005 (herein after referred to as 'Central Act' ), which is the enactment enacted by the Parliament, Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 (herein after referred to as the 'State Act' ) does not operate in relation to the private security agencies. The second main prayer is that in case it is held that the State Act continues to operate in relation to the private security agencies, then the State Government should be directed to pass orders on the proposal pending before it under Section 23 of the State Act for exemption from the provisions of the State Act immediately. 2. Writ Petition No. 1804 of 2007 has been filed by the Association of the Security agencies and also by 22 security agencies. According to averments in the petitio...

Tulip Hotels Pvt. Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj73

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The matter is being argued in the background of earlier adjudication in Arbitration Application No. 4 of 2007 on 19/3/2008 by this Court holding that said application filed before it by the present Applicants was premature because as per agreement between parties the arbitration was contemplated only after failure of conciliation held in terms of Section 62 of Indian Arbitrationand Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as 1996 Act or Arbitration Act. This Court then left present Applicants i.e. M/s Tulip free to invoke said proceedings and all other contentions raised before it open. The two appeals against orders under Section 9 of 1996 Act earlier ordered to be heard with this application have been separated with consent of parties on 17/7/2009. The respective Senior Advocates have completed their arguments after this order.2. In view of this position and as contesting parties are before this Court 3 through their respective learned Senior Advocates...

The Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Division, Sub Division Hingan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj985

S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel.This petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nagpur dated 18.8.1997, which reads thus:Award1] The reference is answered in affirmative2] Oral termination of the party No. 2 w.e.f. 20.4.1986 stand quashed and set aside being illegal and improper.3] Party No. 1 is directed to reinstate the Party No. 2 in the post last held by him and pay him full full back-wages from 23.10.1989 when he has approached before the Conciliation Officer onwards till he is reinstated.4] Copies of award be sent to Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai, through the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur for information and necessary action.5] Papers in conciliation proceedings be returned to Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur.6] The parties bear their own cost.2. Respondent No. 1 was in service of the petitioner. He was working as Oilman/labour on Jam - Warora Road w.e.f. 1.11.1...

NitIn Sitaram Borade and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj261

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the notification dated 21st November 2005 issued by the respondent No. 2, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State under Section 17 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (for short 'MVAT Act').2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners canvassed two grounds of challenge. She firstly submitted that the exercise of power by the respondent No. 2 in issuing of the notification was not in conformity with Sections 3, 16 and 17 of the MVAT Act. Secondly, she submitted that by the notification dated 21st November 2005, the Commissioner directed that in case of the dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act who did not make an application for registration under MVAT Act before 31st December 2005, their existing certificates shall stand cancelled with effect from 1st January 2006. The time given was only 40 days which was too short and therefore the notification was invalid.3. Prior to the year 2002, there existed several laws ...