Mumbai Court September 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Suresh Ganpatrao Ghatge Vs. Shrikant Ramchandra Joshirao and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2011
1. This appeal is pertaining to 2004 and it was pending in this Commission for last 6-7 years. On 26/07/2011 this appeal was placed before us. On that date, we have directed the office to issue notices to both the parties and accordingly notices were sent to both the parties on 16/08/2011, but both parties are absent. Hence, we decide to dispose of the appeal on perusal of appeal memo and other documents placed on record. 2. This is an appeal filed by org. opponent No.2 against the judgement and award passed on 30/06/2001 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in consumer complaint No.174/2001. By allowing the complaint of Shri Shrikant Ramchandra Joshirao against the Credit Society/org. opponent No.1 and against the Directors of the said Credit Society including the appellant, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the org. opponent Nos.1to 7 jointly and severally to refund an amount of `1,50,000/- with interest @ 14.5% p.a. from 05/04/2000 till t...
The Paper Products Ltd. Vs. M/S. Venkataramana Food Specialties Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2011
1. The Plaintiffs have filed the Summary Suit on 30 October 2009 to recover the sum of `16,08,530/- as the Defendants failed to make the full payment of goods supplied (Packaging materials) as per the purchase orders from time to time though the Defendants received and accepted the goods and there was no dispute as to the quality and quantity. The total sum due and payable for goods sold and delivered was `29,40,232.11. By eight cheques, `18,16,831/- was paid by the Defendants. Outstanding amount was `11,23,401/- by adding interest @ 24%. The total balance due on the date of filing of the Suit is as referred above. 2. This Court on Leave Petition No. 882 of 2009 taken out by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners, has granted leave under Clause XII of Letters Patent on 10 November 2009, based upon Clause 9 of the purchase orders. The Suit was lodged on 10 December 2009 after obtaining leave. 3. The Defendants in spite of notice dated 9 April 2009 failed to make the payment and therefore, the Summa...
The Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/S Ankit International
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2011
1. This Appeal filed by the Revenue raises a question as regards the interpretation of the provisions of Section 61(2) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, (" the MVAT Act"). The Commissioner of Sales Tax is in appeal against a decision of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal dated 5 October 2010, by which the Tribunal in an appeal filed by the assessee reduced the penalty imposed for the belated filing of an audit report for the year 2006-07 to Rs. 25,000/-. The submission of the Revenue is that under Section 61(2) while there is a discretion vested in the Commissioner whether or not to impose a penalty, once the Commissioner decides to impose a penalty it has to be in an amount equal to one tenth per cent of the total sales of the assessment year. In other words, the contention of the State is that while there is a discretion on whether or not a penalty should be imposed in the first place, no discretion is conferred by Section 61(2) to reduce the amount of penalty, once the C...
Purushottam S/O Govindrao Bhagwat Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2011
1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2] The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 29.7.2011 thereby dismissing the Original Application No.328/2011, which was filed by the present petitioner challenging the order of transfer dated 31.5.2011 issued by the respondent no.1. 3] The facts in nut-shell, which give rise to the present petition, are as under: The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department of the respondent no.1 on 1.6.1978. The petitioner came to be promoted in the cadre of Sub Divisional Officer / Deputy Engineer in the year 1987 and subsequently as Executive Engineer in the year 2005. It is the contention of the petitioner that from 2005, he was given non-executive posts and for the first time on 14.6.2010...
Mangilal Jagrupji JaIn Vs. Shri Bharat Shankarlal Dhakad (Huf) and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2011
1. The Petitioner (Defendant No.3) is one of the purchaser, along with the Plaintiffs (Respondents 1 to 4) of a property described in the Agreement dated 29 December 2007 (the Agreement), executed with Respondents 5 and 6 (Defendants 1 and 2). The Agreement reflects that the Plaintiffs along with the Petitioner, as partners of M/s. Mahavir Developers (the firm), entered into the agreement for purchase of the property. As the Defendants failed to perform their part, the present Suit is filed, in their individual capacity, for a specific performance based upon the agreement. 2. The Petitioner filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for rejection of the plaint basically on the ground that the Defendants executed the agreement with the partnership firm namely, M/s.Mahavir Developers (the firm), of which the Plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the partners. The firm is not registered. Therefore considering Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act (Mah. Am...
Manika S/O Purbhaji Urade and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2011
1) Heard rival submissions at length on this appeal preferred by all the appellants/original accused Nos.1 to 4, challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 23rd July, 2010 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar district Nanded. 2) The impugned judgment and order was passed in Sessions Case No.17/2007, wherein all the four accused were charged for committing offence of murder of one Bhimrao Jamale in the morning of 2nd February, 2007 by using the weapons, like "Kattis" and wooden sticks and in furtherance of common intention of all the accused. The accused were also charged for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC for causing injuries to PW No.1 - Sarubai wife of the victim and causing hurt to PW No.9 - Baby, married daughter of the victim. 3) All the four accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, however, were acquitted for the offence punishable under Sectio...
Sheikh Abdullah Son of Sheikh Hafizullah Vs. Dr Husnaara Parveen Wife ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-15-2011
1. Present appeal is preferred by appellant-husband against the judgment and order dated 14th June 2001 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Nagpur dismissing his petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Appeal has not come up for final hearing out of chronology. However, in view of Civil Application No. 2386 of 2001 filed by appellant-husband for grant of stay as, according to appellant, respondent-wife is getting married on 16th September 2011, instead of deciding civil application alone, appeal itself has been taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and order and other material on record. 3. The case of the appellant is that respondent is cousin of appellant and they were residing at Bhutiya Darwaza, near Masjid, Nagpur. They fell in love with each other and their love affair blossomed into their agreement to enter the marital tie. It is averred in the petition that somewhere in the month o...
M/S.Delta Logistics. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2011
1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has challenged the validity of an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs on 7 July 2011 by which the Customs House Agents' Licence of the Petitioner has been revoked in exercise of powers conferred by Regulation 22(7) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. The licence of the Petitioner was suspended by the Commissioner of Customs and on 29 October 2009, a chargesheet was issued containing four Article of Charges. On 23 December 2010, the Enquiry Officer exonerated the Petitioner of the charges. The Petitioner thereupon filed representations before the Commissioner of Customs on 6 January 2011 and 18 February 2011 in respect of the enquiry report. By his order dated 7 July 2011, the Commissioner of Customs passed an order by which he differed with the report of the Enquiry Officer and ordered revocation of the licence. 2. The contention of the Petitioner is that the Commissioner could no...
River Valley Residents Welfare Association. Vs. the Municipal Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2011
JUDGMENT: (Per R.M. Savant, J.) 1. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Chaugule makes a statement that the petitioners are not pressing prayer clause (b). The said statement is accepted. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of the above petition, inter alia, seeking demolition of the hutments situated in the River Valley, particularly in areas marked A, B and C in the plan annexed to the petition at Exhibit-B. The petitioners also seek a direction against the respondents to take action in accordance with law to demolish the hutments and clear the public roads and lands reserved for public gardens, recreation grounds, schools, markets and open spaces within a time bound programme of three months and report compliance to this Court. 3. The above petition had come up for admission before a Division Bench of this Court comprising of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale (as His Lordship then was) and Mrs. Justice V.K. Tahilramani on 24th September, 2...
Shri Dhanaji Kashinath Shendkar Vs. Shri Khemchand S. Chawla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 In all these Petitions, on 9th June, 2011 following orders are passed : "1 Issue notice before admission, returnable on 27th June, 2011. Humdast permitted. Private service permitted. 2 Notice to state that the petition shall be finally disposed of at the stage of admission.". Accordingly the Respondents are served. Respondent No.3 was also served and he was again served pursuant to the order dated 30thAugust, 2011. Hence, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Pawar appears for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Smt. Yasmin E. Tawaria appeared for Respondent No.3. By consent of the parties, these Petitions are taken up for hearing forthwith. 2 Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all the Petitions, the same are being heard and disposed off by this common Judgment. The controversy involved in the Writ Petitions is short, namely, whether the Plaintiffs in different suits, which are identical, should be 5 wp3848-3856-11.sxw permitted to amend their plaint, wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »