Mumbai Court August 2009 Judgments

Shri. Dnyaneshwar Devidas Punse Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through t ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR141

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Mr.Naik, AGP waives notice for State. Mr.Thorat waives notice for Respondent No. 4. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for hearing forthwith by consent.3. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the selection list published by the Respondent No. 2 on 15th April, 2009 to the extent of admission given to the Respondent No. 4 in place of the Petitioner herein against the NT-2 category seat in the subject of Prosthodontics. The Petitioner further prays for direction that the Notification No. 6/Revised Preference/2-A dated 08.04.2009 issued by the Respondent No. 2 was restricted to physically handicapped category and would not govern the NT-2 category. The Petitioner has asked for further relief of issuing direction to give one seat to the Petitioner in the college of Responde...

Red Bull (India) Pvt. Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Companies ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR152

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has applied for the following reliefs:a. For a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the Respondents (i) to treat, classify, categorize and test and analyze Red Bull Energy Drink as Proprietary Food and NOT as a nonalcoholic carbonated water under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and release the consignments of the Petitioners lying at Nhava Sheva Port and warehouses of the Petitioners seized/detained by Respondent No. 4 as detailed in Exhibit J on that basis and (ii) to treat/classify/categorize the Petitioners product Red Bull Energy Drink(R) as Proprietary Food and not as non-alcoholic carbonated water and to deal with the same on the basis that it is a Proprietary Food.b. For a writ of certiorari or a wr...

Ranjana Vinod Kejriwal Vs. Vinod Babulal Kejriwal Since Deceased Throu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2009Bom176; 2009(6)MhLj20

P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th August, 2004, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai, in Petition No. A-116/1998 by which the learned Judge of the Family Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant for getting a decree of nullity of her marriage with the respondent, maintenance as well as for return of her articles and things as more particularly set out in Exhibit-A to the said petition2. The appellant was the original petitioner before the Family Court. She preferred the said petition with a prayer that the marriage solemnised on 26th April, 1987, between the appellant and respondent may be treated as null and void and the respondent may be directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month.3. It is the case of the appellant before the Family Court that her marriage with the respondent took place on 26th April, 1987 according to Hindu Vedic Rites at Shree Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan. The said marriag...

Mr. John D'Souza Son of Mr. Domingo D'Souza Vs. the Commissioner of In ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Bom)540

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing. Mr. S.R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate waives service.2. The petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has challenged the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Panaji, State of Goa in a Revision Application bearing No. F.No. CIT-P/264 (22)/07-08/1323 dated 26.2.2009.3. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'Assessee' ) filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2005-2006 of his income on 22.12.2005. The Assessee declared his income of Rs. 1,33,920/-. The statement of accounts, forming part of his return of income disclosed the receipt of compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs received by him during the financial year 2004-2005. The assessee claimed it to be exempted from the taxation. The Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Panaji, State of Goa on 10.12.2007 passed an order holding that the total income of the assessee was Rs. 16,45,051. The demand notice was directed to be issued under Section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act 1...

Plus Inc. Vs. Consim Info Private Limited and

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR89

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Suit revolve around two domain names i.e. 'IndiaProperties.com' a registered domain name of the plaintiffs since 21st September, 1998 and 'IndiaProperty.com' a registered domain name of defendant No. 1 since 21.10.2001. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed the Suit for various reliefs including a perpetual injunction/order against defendants 1 and 2. A Notice of Motion has been also taken out in the year 2006. By order dated 20.02.2006 in the Notice of Motion, this Court refused to grant any adinterim relief. This order of refusal of adinterim relief remained intact till this date. In the result, there is no order of any injunction in operation since then. The present motion is listed for final hearing in due course.2. The basic facts, as averred, are as under:On 21st September, 1996 the plaintiffs registered their domain name 'indiaproperties.com' with Network Solutions Inc., USA. Defendant No. 1 applied for and got registered their domain name 'IndiaProperty.com'...

Transocean Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Customs (Pre ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(243)ELT669(Bom)

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners seek an order of injunction restraining the respondents from recovering the penalty from them of Rs.5,00,000/imposed on the Second Officer of the Russian Vessel M.V. Yelena Stasova (for short 'the vessel') and/or by encashing the bank guarantee and other incidental reliefs.2. The petitioners are the agents of the said vessel which entered the Port of Bombay on 3rd February 1991. On the basis of intelligence received, on 9th February 1991 the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay Zonal Unit rummaged the vessel at 3, Indira Docks, Bombay and found on board contraband material, namely 25 Silver bars and 25 small white silver bars. The vessel was detained and the petitioners were called upon to furnish a bond with bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.62,00,000/for release of the vessel as per the draft of the format provided by the Directorate. The petitioners contended that they were not obliged to furnish a bond or a bank guarantee in ...

Kolhapur District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Tahsil-district-k ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) Sou.Urmila Vijaysingh Khanwilkar, had deposited Rs.10,450/- vide deposit receipt No.070994 on 12/12/1997 with appellant/Bank for a period of ten years. The said deposit was styled as Bhartiya Suvarna Mahotsav Thev Yojana. It was to mature on 12/12/2007 and on maturity the complainant was to get an amount of Rs.50,000/-. However, the Bank refused to pay interest at the rate of 16% per annum on the ground that the said fixed deposit was subject to R.B.I.s directions with regard to payment of interest. Initially, agreed rate of interest was 16% per annum but R.B.I. reduced the said rate of interest. Hence, dispute arose and the lady filed consumer complaint and claimed refund of principal amount with interest at the rate of 16% per annum. The Forum below passed order in favour of the complainant. Aggrieved thereby, the Bank has filed this appeal. 2) We heard submissions of Ms.Archana Kololgi, Adv. for the appellant/Bank and Mr....

Shri Sujit Rameshchandra Jirapure, Tah-dist-nashik Vs. Icici Bank Limi ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) This is an appeal filed by the original complainant whose Consumer Complaint No.261/2006 was dismissed by the District Consumer Forum, Nashik by its judgment dated 13/2/2008. 2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: 3) The complainant is having business styled as Mousam Resorts. He had opened account with the O.P./Bank. His grievance is that O.P.No.2 ICICI Bank Limited withdrew Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- under quarterly average balance and roaming current account and debited the said amount from his current account. His further grievance is that he had taken loan for his Scorpio vehicle from O.P.No.2/Bank and despite payment of EMIs, the vehicle was taken away by the Bank. According to him, the charges recovered from him under quarterly average balance and roaming current account charges is illegal and therefore he filed consumer complaint claiming amount of Rs.20 Lakh plus interest at the rate of 18% and also...

M/S. Megha Property Developers Ltd., Thru Manager Adm, Shri M.A. Kamer ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Both these appeals arise out of order/award dated 15/03/2007 passed in consumer complaint No.96/2005 Mr.Sushil Mahesh alias Maheshwari and Anr. V/s. M/s.Megha Property Developers Ltd. and Ors. by Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Thane (Forum below in short). Undisputed facts are that respondent/complainant No.1 Mr.Sushil Mahesh alias Maheshwari (hereinafter referred as the complainant) agreed to purchase three shops from the scheme developed and constructed by appellant/org. O.P.No.1 M/s.Megha Property Developers Ltd. (hereinafter referred as developers). Disputed shop No.10 is one of these three shops. Transaction is witnessed by allotment letter dated 11/09/1993. According to the complainants, out of total consideration agreed upon for the disputed shop No.10 admeasuring 471 sq.ft. he had paid Rs.4,64,200/- by cheque and Rs.2,35,000/- by cash. Subsequently, a dispute arose and original complainant No.2/Renuka ...

Premier Limited, Mumbai-pune Road, Pune Vs. Mr. Devendra Dhondiba Band ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This appeal is filed by the original O.P.No.1 against the judgment and award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kolhapur in Consumer Complaint No.324/2007. While allowing the said complaint the forum below directed original O.P.Nos.1 and 2 to give replacement of transport vehicle No.MH-10-Z-7078 or to refund the amount of cost of the vehicle to the complainant. The forum below also directed both the opposite parties to give to the complainant Rs.32,433/- for the expenses incurred, and Rs.1,000/- as costs. As such, O.P.No.1 Premier Limited has filed this appeal. 2. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- One Mr.Devendra Dhondiba Bandgar of M.I.D.C., Kupwad, Tal.Miraj filed the consumer complaint against O.P.No.1 Premier Limited and Excellent Motors O.P.No.2. He averred in his complaint that he had purchased Road Star 2500, transport vehicle No. MH-10-Z-7078 on 26/10/2006 from O.P.No.2, who ...