Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Mrs. Uma S. Bora, Presiding Judicial Member: Oral: 1. Present appeal is filed by original complainant against the judgment and order dated 10.8.2007 in complaint case No. 230/2006 passed by District Forum, Aurangabad. Facts of the case in a nutshell are as under: Complainant Latif Chandulal Tamboli, resident of Aurangabad whose son by name Sikandar after graduation in Arts had an inclination towards Hotel Management. Opponent No. 1 Metropolitan Education Trust, Mumbai and opponent No. 2 Hotel Management and Catering Technology, Puneflashed advertisement in local newspapers of Aurangabad about professional course in Hotel Managementopponent Nos. 3 and 4 are the institutions with whom opponent No. 1 and 2 are affiliated. Therefore, complainant approached to opponent for admission of his son on 28.6.2005. Complainant received brochure regarding the details of the course and terms and condition about the admission. Thereafter, complainant paid the fees as agreed and took admission for his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1) Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2) The petitioners are aggrieved by the communications dated 5/10/2011 and 21/10/2011 whereby the petitioners are informed that the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) as well the Appellate Committee of the AICTE respectively, have declined to grant extension of approval to the four management institutes run by the petitioner, during the academic year 2011-12. The petitioners seek a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the said communications and by a Writ of Mandamus seek an order directing the AICTE to forthwith grant extension of approval to the petitioners for the academic year 2011-2012. 3) Facts relevant for the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner Society is a charitable Trust established under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and also under the Society's Registration Act, 1860. The said Trust inter alia runs the following institutions at Pune since 1999, 2002, 2003 and 2004...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. In both these petitions, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the provisions of Rule 86E of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Rules" for short), with prayer to declare it as ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners in both the matters are creditors, and the Cooperative Society from whom they have borrowed loan, have instituted proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1960 Act" for short). One of their objection is, about availability of alternative remedy under Section 154 of the 1960 Act. Petitioners have urged that as constitutional validity of Rule 86E has been assailed, that remedy is not equally efficacious. The creditors assert that challenge is frivolous and only to avoid deposit of 50% of the amount claimed as mandated under Section 154(2). Accordingly we have proceeded further to c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1] By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the impugned order of dismissal passed by the learned Sessions Judge (in charge) Nagpur on 16.8.2007, whereby the Criminal Revision Application which arose out of common order dated 15.2.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.4, Nagpur, below Misc. Cri. Appln. Nos. 1573/2006, 1818/2006 and 2000/2006 (which were applications by different claimants to the seized property in Crime No.213/2006, reported at Tahsil Police Station, Nagpur) came to be dismissed. 2] It appears that Vishalbhai Narendrabhai Parekh running a business in the name and style as "R. V. Jewellers" and "Parekh R. Vitthaldas" had preferred Misc. Criminal Application No. 1573/2006 to claim seized gold reported to the learned Magistrate by the Police from Tahsil Police Station. Another claimant Sachin Prabhakarrao Sutone had filed Misc. Criminal Application no.1818/20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner No. 1 - A Company under Companies Act, 1956, and petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, who are its Directors, have prayed for quashing of the warrant of authorization for conducting search, issued under Section 132 of Income-Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and consequential action thereafter in issuing notices under Section 153-A of the Act, thereafter for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2009-10. The search operations have been carried out from 19th June 2009 to 21st July 2009. The matter was directed to be listed for final hearing by orders of this Court dated 22nd July 2011, in the week commencing from 22nd August 2011. The short contention is about absence of any material, warranting such search action. 2. Accordingly, we have heard Shri Thakkar with Shri Bhattad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Shri Thakkar, learned counsel has urged t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2 at Jalna, in Sessions Case No. 143 of 2009, convicting the appellant, who was the sole accused in the said case, of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The prosecution case can be best stated from the `brief facts of the case', as mentioned in column no.15 of the printed prescribed proforma of the charge sheet/Final Report. It is as follows : That, on 03.06.2009, the accused and one Shaikh Sattar S/o Shaikh Sardar (the deceased) left Aurangabad by a vehicle bearing no. MH-20 AA-8955 belonging to Sarda Logistic Company for going to Vijaywada, Andra Pradesh. The said vehicle was a Container, carrying Refrigerators of Videocon Company. The accused was driving the said vehicle. Even the deceased Shaikh Sattar was a driver. For some time, the accused was to dr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1] This Revision Application was earlier dismissed in default on 7.6.2010. Thereafter, it was restored by order dated 5 th July, 2010 and posted for final hearing. Learned counsel for the applicant Shri S. V. Bhutada was heard on 22nd March, 2011 and on 5.12.2011. Today I have heard Shri A. B. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent.2] Criminal Revision No.280/2007 2] By this revision application, the applicant has challenged the question of legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 29th August 2007 delivered by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-II, Akola in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2006 arising from the judgment and order dated 17 th December 2005 delivered by Joint Judicial Magistrate, Akola in Summary Criminal Case No.17559/1996. 3] Perused the record and proceedings. 4] The facts, which appear from the record, are as under:- The complainant is the Co-operative Society doing banking business in the district of Akola. The applicant (accused) ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. In both these petitions, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the provisions of Rule 86E of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Rules" for short), with prayer to declare it as ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners in both the matters are creditors, and the Cooperative Society from whom they have borrowed loan, have instituted proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1960 Act" for short). One of their objection is, about availability of alternative remedy under Section 154 of the 1960 Act. Petitioners have urged that as constitutional validity of Rule 86E has been assailed, that remedy is not equally efficacious. The creditors assert that challenge is frivolous and only to avoid deposit of 50% of the amount claimed as mandated under Section 154(2). Accordingly we have proceeded further to c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1] By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant (original complainant) has prayed for, to quash and set aside the order passed below Exhibit 66 on 2 Cr. Appln. No.398/2010 21.12.2009 in Summary Criminal Case No.3950/2008 by the learned 23rd Judicial Magistrate First Class and Special Court, Nagpur, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby the learned Trial Magistrate was pleased to direct return of the complaint for to be presented before the Court having jurisdiction. The complainant aggrieved by the said order, preferred this Criminal Application with prayer for to invoke inherent powers, in view of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2] The facts, which appear, briefly are as under:- The applicant is a non-banking finance company incorporated and registered as a company under the Companies Act, 1956 doing business of leasing and hire purchase having its corporate office at Sadhna House behind Mahindra Towers wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Counsel for the respective respondents waive notice. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has primarily assailed the decision of respondent No. 2 dated 2nd July, 2010, as also the letter intimating the petitioner about the decision of the respondent No. 2 dated 2nd July, 2010. The petitioner further prays that this Court may issue appropriate writ directing the respondents No. 3 and 4, i.e., Management and College, respectively, to appoint the petitioner as Principal of the College, since she is duly qualified to be appointed to the said post, as was held by respondent No. 2 vide decision dated 30th March, 2007. During the pendency of this petition, by way of amendment, the petitioner has prayed for further reliefs. It is prayed that appropriate writ be issued for quashing and setting aside Government Resolution (hereinafter referred to as `GR') No.NGC-1200/7193/(5/00)/VISHI-4 dated 13th ...
Tag this Judgment!