Mumbai Court September 2009 Judgments

Manish Satpal Agarwal Vs. Sau. Dolly Manish Agarwal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj755

P.B. Majmudar, J.1. The appellant husband is the original appellant before the Family Court, Pune, who instituted Petition No. A436/ 2005 for getting decree of divorce. The appellant instituted the said petition before the Family Court, Pune. It is the case of the appellant that his marriage with the present respondent wife took place on 6th February, 2003 at Pune and thereafter they resided together till 5th October, 2004. Out of the said wedlock, there are no issues.2. It is further the case of the appellant that he is serving as an Accountant in Gurunanak Marketing Company and was drawing salary of Rs. 5,000/per month. As against that, respondent is serving at S.O.S. Smart card, Poolgate, Pune and was getting salary of Rs. 5,000/. According to the appellant, there was happiness in the initial period of their matrimonial life but thereafter the respondent wife started describing the appellant as a Computer Engineer. According to the appellant, the respondent was under the impression ...

Shailesh Gandhi Vs. State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3896

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner in Public Interest Litigation No. 156 of 2006, a full time Right to Information Activist and the Convenor of the National Campaign for People's Right to Information, has filed the above Public Interest Litigation in this Court averring that a major fraud is being perpetrated on the citizens, the slum dwellers and the State by hijacking a welfare scheme to benefit a few at the cost of the public at large. According to him, number of reports had appeared in the media in this regard. In the case of Arun Ramavlal Pathak v. Siddhivanayak Construction Co. and Ors. Misc. Application No. 76 of 2005 the Court of Special Judge, Mumbai had directed a complaint received in such matters to be sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Similar directions were also passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction in the case of Himmat Fulchand Chauhan v. Shri P.D. Nikumbh and Ors. Misc. Application No. 112 of 2006. To pursue the mat...

Kum. Archana Dalal and Kum. Annapurna Nandanwar Vs. State of Maharasht ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3881

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Heard. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing.2. The first Petitioner belongs to Halba community while Petitioner No. 2 belongs to Koshti Community which, according to them, were recognised as Schedule Tribes and Special Backward Class, respectively. Both the Petitioners submitted their application forms for the respective seats for MMS course reserved for S.T. And S.P.B.C. candidates. The Petitioners then appeared for Common Entrance Test (CET) conducted by Respondent No. 2 at the State Level in the month of February, 2008. Petitioner No. 1 had already completed her Bachelor's degree of BCA from Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Communication, Bhopal, while Petitioner No. 2 had completed her course of BMS from Mumbai University. As per the instructions in the brochure and the practice adopted, the Petitioners submitted their respective applications forms and attended t...

Smt. Khatizam Bi Sikandar Khan Widow of Late Sikandar Khan, (Expired) ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010CriLJ331

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is complainant's appeal and is directed against Judgment dated 13.10.08 acquitting the accused under Section 406 IPC.2. The complainant is a widow who had five sons and two daughters. After Judgment dated 13.10.2008 and during the pendency of her application for leave to appeal, she expired and the application for leave to appeal was pursued by one of her sons by name Liyakat Ali Khan.3. The complaint was filed by her against one of her sons by name Salim Khan/A-2 and his wife Smt. Rahimat Bi Khan/A-1. However, process was issued against only her daughter-in-law the said Smt. Rahimat Khan who will be hereinafter referred to as the accused. No process was issued against her son the said Salim Khan nor the order refusing to issue process against him appears to have been challenged. Any reference to the complainant hereinafter will be to the deceased complainant.4. The complaint was filed with the allegation that in March, 2007, the complainant had told her son the ...

Smt. Hetal Alpesh Muchhala Vs. Adityesh Educational Institute and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]152CompCas75(Bom)

S.J. Kathawalla, J.1. By this company application, the applicant/appellant seeks condonation of delay of 105 days in lodging the company appeal filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. The question which arises for determination in this application is whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, are applicable to an appeal filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Admittedly, a certified copy of the order passed by the Company Law Board dated February 2, 2009 (Smt. Hetal Alpesh Muchhala v. Adityesh Educational Institute P. Ltd. [2009] 149 Comp Cas 241), was received by the applicant on February 16, 2009. However, the company appeal was lodged on July 31, 2009 and the company application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was lodged on August 4, 2009.3. An affidavit in reply to the said application is filed by respondent No. 3 wherein it is contended by respondent No. 3 that in view of the proviso to Section 10F, the applicant is...

Chemipol Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Law Ministry and the Commissioner o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(244)ELT497(Bom)

D.G. Karnik, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27th February 2006 passed by the Customs, Central Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') rejecting the application filed by the appellant for restoration of its appeal for non prosecution.2. The appellant had filed an appeal before the Tribunal bearing No. E/2822/98 - Mum challenging the order in original dated 30th April 1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The appeal was posted for hearing on 25th May 2005. As the appellant was absent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Application filed by the applicant for setting aside the order of dismissal for non prosecution was rejected by the Tribunal. Hence the appeal.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') the Tribunal has no power to dismiss an appeal for default in appearance of an appellant. Even if the appellant is absent, the Tribunal is required to...

Pradip Sitaram Shelte and Others Vs. M/S. Joshua Estate Developers Pvt ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This consumer complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12(1)(c ) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Herein after referred as Act for brevity). O.P.nos.3 to 5 are the promoters and office bearers of proposed Co-operative Housing Society, which was formed by the employees of RCF i.e. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizer factory at Mumbai. Complainants registered themselves as the members of said proposed society, in order to participate in the scheme floated by it to secure tenements/flats from amongst the two categories of flats having area either 540 sq.ft. or 730 sq.ft. Said proposed society entered into an agreement with O.P.nos.1and2 for providing flats in a building constructed by O.P.nos.1and2 (Herein after referred as Builder and Developer) on CTS no.1061 (1) Hissa no.36 (Pt), Kanjurmarg, Mumbai. Each one of the complainants accordingly paid various amounts as per schedule at Annexure B of the complaint. However,...

Balasaheb Dattatraya Kolekar Prop. Mahalaxmi Krishi Udyog, Sangli Vs. ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Mrs. S.P. Lale, Honble Member This appeal is directed against the order dated 30/04/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.42/2007 by District Consumer Forum, Sangli, whereby the Forum below directed the O.P. to pay Rs.1,07,500/- before 30/05/2008 to the complainant, failing which O.P. is directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. to the complainant. Being dissatisfied by the said order, org. complainant has filed present appeal, seeking enhancement in compensation. There is delay of 49 days in filing this appeal. Therefore, application for condonation of delay is filed. Delay is not intentional or deliberate. Delay is properly explained showing just and sufficient cause. We are therefore, inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay is condoned. The complainant had taken insurance policy from the O.P. for the period from 24/07/2005 to 23/07/2006 of his godown. Sum assured was Rs.30 Lakhs. According to the complainant du...

Ashoka Communications Prop. Ashok T. Sidanale, Pune Vs. Mr. Pathak, Dy ...

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 26/03/2009 passed in consumer complaint No.251/2007, Ashoka Communications through its Proprietor Mr.Ashok T. Sadanale V/s. Mr.Pathak, Dy. General Manager (Central), BSNL, Pune and Ors. by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Pune (Forum below in short). Appellant/complainant filed this appeal consequent to the dismissal of his consumer complaint related to inflated telephone bills. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that he runs a business M/s.Ashoka Communications and for which a landline telephone bearing No.24320582 was provided to him by BSNL, Pune. According to him, his average consumption telephone bill was around Rs.1,100/- per month. However, bill dated 06/05/2007 was received for Rs.13,613/- and again in the month of July 2007 and September 2007 received bills respectively for Rs.7,900/- and Rs.9,430/-. Complainant raised objection for those inflated bills. But...

Shri Shrinivas Srinidhi Chillara and Others Mrs.Usha Ganapathi and Oth ...

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 complainants whose complaint was dismissed by the District Forum, Pune in Consumer Complaint No.14/2008 decided on 18/12/2008. 2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- 3) All the complainants had purchased flats constructed by O.P.No.1 and 2 in the scheme known as Garud Heritage D Apartments situated on Plot No.13, Survey No.260/2/9 at Baner, Pune. Both the O.Ps were the owners of the said plot. They developed the said plot by obtaining permission from Local Authority. The complainants had obtained possession of the respective flats on various dates and they had no grievance about possession of the flats. Their grievances were limited to two points, the flat No.2 of the said scheme was in the name of O.P.No.2 and it has separate access and it was having garden area carved out from the common area of the plot. The O.Ps erected the wall and thereby flat No.2 is separated...