Mumbai Court May 2012 Judgments

Shivraj Service Station and Others Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corp ...

Court: Mumbai

P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By consent, matter is taken on board for final hearing at the stage of admission. 3. This appeal is preferred by original applicants against the judgment dt.19.12.2007 passed by the Judge, Employees' Insurance Court, Satara in E.S.I. Application No.5 of 2005 dismissing applicants' application under section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. 4. The appellants are the proprietory/partnership firms engaged in filling petroleum products in the vehicles of customers. The Officer of the respondent Corporation visited their petrol pumps for making inquiry whether the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is applicable to them or not. Because of that, on the basis of apprehension, the respondents may make applicable the said Act to them, the appellants filed application under section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 for declaration that the said Act is not applicable to them on various grounds. The Trial Court after co...

Vaibhavi A. Khot Vs. Vithaldham C.H.S.Ltd Through Chairman/Secretary

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member [1] This appeal filed by the Appellant/original Complainant takes an exception to an order dated 31/12/2007 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.440 of 2004, Smt. Vaibhavi A. Khot Vs. Vithaldham Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [2] Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:- The Appellant/original Complainant had requested the Respondent/original Opponent Society to make her a member of the Society in place of her mother who died on 10/8/1996 who, was an original member and who had been allotted a flat bearing No.101 in the Respondent/original Opponent Society. Accordingly, the Respondent/original Opponent Society had placed the subject before its general body and the general body had accorded permission on 21/12/1997 to the proposal of making the Appellant/original Complainant a member of the Society in place of ...

Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. Vs. Mantech Consultants

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: ArbitrationandConciliationAct; 1996-Sections34; 11; 33; 16

 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2 nd September, 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in Arbitration Petition No. 477 of 2006. By the aforesaid order, the learned single Judge allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Award dated 17 th August, 2006 passed by the sole Arbitrator is set aside on the ground that the same was not made within the stipulated time allowed by the arbitration agreement.2. The appellant, Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd., and the respondent M/s. Mantech Consultants, entered into an agreement on 30 th December, 1996 by which the respondent was to carry out certain work in respect of inter-state pipeline project. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. According to the appellant, since the respondent had not carried out the work as per the agreement, the parties agreed to close the contract. Subsequently certain disput...

Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. Vs. M/S. Mantech Consultants

Court: Mumbai

P.B. Majmudar, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2nd September, 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in Arbitration Petition No. 477 of 2006. By the aforesaid order, the learned single Judge allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the Award dated 17th August, 2006 passed by the sole Arbitrator is set aside on the ground that the same was not made within the stipulated time allowed by the arbitration agreement. 2. The appellant, Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd., and the respondent M/s. Mantech Consultants, entered into an agreement on 30th December, 1996 by which the respondent was to carry out certain work in respect of interstate pipeline project. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. According to the appellant, since the respondent had not carried out the work as per the agreement, the parties agreed to close the contract. Subsequen...

Rajesh Bhaurao Sadanshiv Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai Nagpur

SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV J. 1. The appellant herein stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- in default further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No. 153 of 2005 by a judgment and order dated 1.11.2006. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant herein has preferred the present criminal appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that:- On 29.8.2005 Mahadeo Suryabhan Dhokne lodged a report at Old City Police Station, Akola alleging therein that on 29.8.2005 at about 1.30 p.m. one Balu Sapkal resident of the same village, informed him that his nephew namely Siddharth was lying dead under the banyan tree in front of the house of Shivlal Dhokare. MahadeoDhokne, therefore, rushed to the spot and noticed that his nephew Siddharth was lying in a pool of blood. He had inquired about the incid...

Jagshi K. Shah Vs. M/S. Shaan Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Court: Mumbai

P.C. 1. What is challenged in these appeals is the order dated 28 February 2012 of the learned trial Judge of this Court, raising the following preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as applicable in the State of Maharashtra:- “Whether the suit has been filed within the period of limitation? The learned Judge further directed that this issue will be rendered as preliminary issue in the suit and the evidence shall be recorded on Commission. The learned Judge further directed that the cost of the Commissioner shall be paid by 3 sets viz., the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 initially and the same shall be subject to further orders in the suit. The examination-in-chief shall be filed by way of affidavit. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs submits that the question of limitation cannot be raised as a preliminary issue and that under Section 9A of C.P.C., only an issue as to jurisdiction of the Court can be raised...

Harshkumar Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another

Court: Mumbai

Oral Judgment: By this Petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner prays that by an appropriate Writ, Order or directions, the criminal proceedings pending before the J.M.F.C. Kalyan vide Regular Criminal Case No.434 of 2009 in which the Petitioner is an Accused, be quashed. 2. I have heard Mr.Ravindra Adsure, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr.R.S. Apte the learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent no.2. I have also heard Mr. J.P. Kharge, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-Respondent no.1. 3. A complaint was lodged by Respondent no.2 herein against the Petitioner (mentioned as Accused No.2 in the said complaint) and his mother Geeta Rajesh Khare (Accused no.1 therein). The complaint alleged that the accused persons had committed offences punishable under sections 417 IPC, 420 IPC, 464 IPC, 466 IPC, 468 IPC,471 IPC and 474 IPC. It was prayed in the said complaint that investigation, as contemplated under section 156...

E.S. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation)(C.B.i.), Mumbai ...

Court: Mumbai

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking a writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside FIR no. 26(A)/2010 which is registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation for the offences punishable under section 120B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (For short "PC Act") 2. Brief facts are as under:- FACTS 3. Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in the year 1997 and was later on promoted to the post of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 03/02/2005 with effect from 23/10/2003. 4. Sometime in 2008, one Mr. Vijay Patil, President, Maharashtra Kamgar Ekta Union made a complaint to the Petitioner regarding evasion of employees provident fund contribution of 2000 employees of M/s Pratibha Industries Limited. An inquiry was initiated by the Petitioner on...