Mumbai Court August 2012 Judgments
Rameshbhai Mithubhai Shah Propreitor of Sweta Investment and Financial ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member [1] These two consumer complaints are disposed of by this common order since they involve common facts interconnected with each other and also involve common question of law. [2] It is the case of Mr. Rameshbhai Mithubhai Shah, Complainant in Consumer Complaint No.55 of 2001 that he is the proprietor of M/s. Sweta Investment and Financial Company and for his personal residential need he agreed to purchase a flat in a property being developed by the Opponents, namely Smt. Sanika M. Deshpande and Smt. Kamleshkumari J. Jaykar (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Builder for the sake of brevity) for an agreed consideration of Rs. 19,50,000/- and accordingly, paid an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as part-consideration. Property he agreed to purchase is a flat bearing No.303, situate on the third floor at from A Wing of the Building Kamalaya and having built-up area admeasuring 650 sq. ft. Said transaction is witnessed by an allotment letter date...
Tag this Judgment!Rustomjee Kerawalla Foundation Vs. Avisha Gopalkrishnan Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The present Letters Patent Appeal has been assigned to this Court for hearing by an administrative direction of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and we have accordingly taken up the appeal for hearing and final disposal by consent. 2. This appeal arises from a decision of a Learned Single Judge dated 31 July 2012 on a Petition filed by the Appellant under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challenge an order of the Charity Commissioner dated 11 January 2012. The Charity Commissioner rejected an application filed by the Appellant for dismissal of an enquiry which was initiated on the basis of a complaint dated 25 January 2011 lodged by the First Respondent. Briefly stated, it was urged before the Learned Single Judge that an enquiry into the complaint lodged on 25 January 2011 was barred by the principles of res judicata on the ground that on an earlier complaint dated 3 May 2008, a report was submitted by the Inspector on 4 June 20...
Tag this Judgment!Champalal S/O Chunnilal Paliwal, (Dead Through Lrs.) and Others Vs. th ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.12.1991 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur holding that the petitioner – Champalal could not have been retained in service, in public interest. Though this order mentions provision of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1979 Rules” for short) or Rule 13(1) thereof, it is not in dispute that same reference needs to be construed as reference to Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1964 Rules” for short). Petitioner, thereafter had preferred an appeal under Rule 13 of 1964 Rules before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and that Authority has maintained said order. 2. During the pendency of this challenge, the petitioner ex...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Windsor Machines Ltd., (Formerly Known as Dgp Windsor India Limit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2 The Petitioners-Management have challenged impugned order dated 27 January 2012, in Miscellaneous Application ULP No. 1 of 2011, passed by the Industrial Court, thereby registered the complaint filed by the Respondents-original Complainants, after deciding an Application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint, under Section 28 of The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, “MRTU and PULP Act”). 3 The basic prayers of condonation of delay Application are as under:- “(A) Hold and declare that there is no delay in filing of the Complaint by the Complainants in respect of any cause of action; (B) Hold and declare that all the causes of action for the Complaint are of a continuing nature; (C) Hold and declare that cause of action for the relief of implementation of the Settlement dated 29th of December 2004 read with resignation letters of th...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Govindji Khona Vs. Indian Bank, a Body Corporate Constituted U ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is questioning validity and propriety of the order dated 10.4.2012 (impugned order) passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 22.2.2012 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Misc. Application No. 7 of 2012 dismissing the application for condonation of delay came to be upheld. FACTS STATED BY THE PETITIONER: 3. On 7.9.1987 High Court Suit No. 2636 of 1987 was filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs.69,50,213.59 paise with interest against the petitioner and for enforcement of mortgage. On 9.12.1996 decree was passed by the Bombay High Court. On 31.5.1997 petitioner tendered the amount in terms of decree dated 9.12.1996 which was refused by the respondent. On 8.7.1997 petitioner took out Chamber Summons No. 1066 of 1997 for reco...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Post and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Bhangale, J.) 1. These petitions were filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15/10/1999 passed by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as “the CAT”) in Original application nos. 459 of 1997 and 460 of 1997, wherein it is held that a government servant completing the age of Superannuation on 31/03/1995 and relinquishing charge of his Office in the afternoon of that day is deemed to have effectively retired from service with effect from 01/04/1995. Thus, the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to give benefit of O. M. no 7/1/95-P and PW(F), dated 14/07/1995 of the Government of India , Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The respondents/Government Servants from ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Atchut Mucund Alornekar and Others Vs. Central Bureau of Investig ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. By this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside all proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2/S/2012/B pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Vasco-da-Gama (Goa) along with the F.I.R. registered on 25/04/2008 by the CBI(ACB), Goa. 3. F.I.R. dated 25/4/2008 was lodged by Shri S. S. Harwalkar, the superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB/Goa. It was alleged that during the period from 2005 to 2006, M/s. Adani Exports Ltd, Ahmedabad imported two consignments of Naphtha and one Consignment of Fuel Oil at Goa Port. The petitioners and others named in the F.I.R. illegally allowed the warehousing of the said consignments in the private Bonded Tank of M/s. Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., Mormugao, after expiry of licence No. 2/05 on 31/12/2005 and without permission of Assistant Commissioner of Customs. They did...
Tag this Judgment!Rustomjee Kerawalla Foundation Vs. Avisha Gopalkrishnan Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The present Letters Patent Appeal has been assigned to this Court for hearing by an administrative direction of the Honble the Chief Justice and we have accordingly taken up the appeal for hearing and final disposal by consent. 2. This appeal arises from a decision of a Learned Single Judge dated 31 July 2012 on a Petition filed by the Appellant under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challenge an order of the Charity Commissioner dated 11 January 2012. The Charity Commissioner rejected an application filed by the Appellant for dismissal of an enquiry which was initiated on the basis of a complaint dated 25 January 2011 lodged by the First Respondent. Briefly stated, it was urged before the Learned Single Judge that an enquiry into the complaint lodged on 25 January 2011 was barred by the principles of res judicata on the ground that on an earlier complaint dated 3 May 2008, a report was submitted by the Inspector on 4 June 2008 foll...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Windsor Machines Ltd., (Formerly Known as Dgp Windsor India Limit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2 The Petitioners-Management have challenged impugned order dated 27 January 2012, in Miscellaneous Application ULP No. 1 of 2011, passed by the Industrial Court, thereby registered the complaint filed by the Respondents-original Complainants, after deciding an Application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint, under Section 28 of The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, MRTU and PULP Act). 3 The basic prayers of condonation of delay Application are as under:- (A) Hold and declare that there is no delay in filing of the Complaint by the Complainants in respect of any cause of action; (B) Hold and declare that all the causes of action for the Complaint are of a continuing nature; (C) Hold and declare that cause of action for the relief of implementation of the Settlement dated 29th of December 2004 read with resignation letters of the Complainants all da...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Govindji Khona Vs. Indian Bank, a Body Corporate Constituted U ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is questioning validity and propriety of the order dated 10.4.2012 (impugned order) passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 22.2.2012 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Misc. Application No. 7 of 2012 dismissing the application for condonation of delay came to be upheld. FACTS STATED BY THE PETITIONER: 3. On 7.9.1987 High Court Suit No. 2636 of 1987 was filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs.69,50,213.59 paise with interest against the petitioner and for enforcement of mortgage. On 9.12.1996 decree was passed by the Bombay High Court. On 31.5.1997 petitioner tendered the amount in terms of decree dated 9.12.1996 which was refused by the respondent. On 8.7.1997 petitioner took out Chamber Summons No. 1066 of 1997 for reco...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »