//
archives

Mumbai

This tag is associated with 52 posts

Selling of flats – No privity of contract – no deficiency of service- contract between Res. No. 2 and Complainant – Complainant paid amount to Res. 2 – there is no direct contract between Res.1 and complainant – in absence of privity of contract – in the absence of consideration – Res.1 is not liable to refund the amount as the memorandum of agreement was terminated between Res. 2 and Res.1 and as per the termination , the Res.2 has to refund the amount taken from complainants – Res. No.2 not filed any appeal , Res. 1 directed to recover the same from Res. 2 – all revisions are allowed = M/s. Shree Construction Versus 1. Mr. Suryakanth Parshuram Sawant 2. M/s. Vastu Promoters & Consultants … Respondents/Complainants= published in ncdrcrep/judgement/00131202135111612RP2259-258408.htm

Selling of flats – No privity of contract – no deficiency of service- contract between Res. No. 2 and Complainant – Complainant paid amount to Res. 2 – there is no direct contract between Res.1 and complainant – in absence of privity of contract – in the absence of consideration – Res.1 is not liable to refund the … Continue reading

Restricting to four floors the height of Wing ‘C’ (providing for public parking lot- ‘PPL’ for short) of the buildings being constructed on Plot No.46 of Town Planning Scheme-III, – Apex court – gave directions – Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. … Appellants Versus Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Company Private Limited and another … Respondents = Published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41115

Restricting to four floors the height of Wing ‘C’ (providing  for  public  parking  lot- ‘PPL’ for short) of the buildings being constructed on Plot  No.46  of  Town Planning Scheme-III, – Apex court – gave directions –   Division  Bench  of  the  Bombay  High  Court  whereby  Writ  Petition No.143/2012 filed by the respondents was  allowed,  and  which  quashed … Continue reading

Sec.466 Company Act – permission of company court for eviction suit against a winding up company from a leased premises – earlier orders when not on merit – a subsequent order granting permission for filing eviction suit – Reversed by D.B. bench on the point of resjudicate – Apex court allowed the appeal and set aside the D.B. bench holding that there is no Res-judicata = Erach Boman Khavar … Appellant Versus Tukaram Shridhar Bhat and another …Respondents = Published in / Cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41074

Sec.466 Company Act – permission of company court for eviction suit against a     winding up company from a leased premises – earlier orders when not on merit – a subsequent order granting permission for filing eviction suit – Reversed by D.B. bench on the point of resjudicate – Apex court allowed the appeal … Continue reading

Scope of sec.301 and Sec.311 Cr.P.C. – Duty of court / Public prosecutor = Victim/ complainant has got limited scope to participate in criminal trial as state take over the case – When latches and lacunas were brought to the notice before the court or Public prosecutor by him/her , it is their duty to consider the same instead of reject the same as not maintainable under sec.301 Cr. P.C. – When an official Witness who conducted Test Identification parade – Being a Judicial Officer – how can he be permitted to depose in his chief examination contradicting his report/beyond his report which was not found in his record produced – is it not a duty of court or the public prosecutor to cross examine that witness statement made deliberately with out any basis infavour of Accused = Apex court set aside the orders of Lower court and High court and directed the lower court to recall the witness and made specific cross examination about the specific point deposed by him with out any record or beyond his record test identification report and gave an opportunity to file written submissions at the time of arguments = Sister Mina Lalita Baruwa …. Appellant VERSUS State of Orissa and others …. Respondent = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41046

Scope of sec.301 and Sec.311 Cr.P.C. – Duty of court / Public prosecutor = Victim/     complainant has got limited scope to participate in criminal trial as state take over the case – When latches and lacunas were brought to the notice before the court or Public prosecutor by him/her , it is their duty to consider the … Continue reading

Market fee on castor seeds purchased by company in the market area of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Baroda (for short “APMC”) – Apex court held as the company bought the seeds , it is not entitled for any exemption for fee as it is agriculture product = The respondent-Company, manufacturing castor oil from out of the castor seeds purchased by it comes under the jurisdiction of the market area of the APMC and therefore, it is liable for paying the market fees/cess for the trading activities carried out by it in the market area. APMC levied market fee on the castor seeds bought by the Company on the basis that castor seeds were brought within the market area of APMC. = AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE ……APPELLANT Versus BIOTOR INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. ….RESPONDENTS = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41040

Market fee on castor seeds purchased by company in the market area of Agricultural Produce     Market Committee, Baroda (for short “APMC”) – Apex court held as the company bought the seeds , it is not entitled for any exemption for fee as it is agriculture product =    The respondent-Company, manufacturing castor oil … Continue reading

Sec.138 N.I.Act – Sec.201 of Cr.p.c. – Power of magistrate to recall it’s orders – Jurisdiction of court for cheque bounce case = (i) Whether the Magistrate after having found sufficient ground for proceeding in case and issued summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C. has the jurisdiction to recall or review the order by exercising its power under Section 201 Cr.P.C.; = Apex court held – No. (ii) Whether the petition under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was maintainable at Mumbai on the ground that goods were supplied from Mumbai to Delhi and cheques were handed over at Mumbai and legal notice was issued from Mumbai. = Apex court held – Yes = DEVENDRA KISHANLAL DAGALIA … APPELLANT VERUS DWARKESH DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. … RESPONDENTS = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40991

Sec.138 N.I.Act – Sec.201 of Cr.p.c. – Power of magistrate to recall it’s orders – Jurisdiction of court for cheque bounce case = (i)   Whether the Magistrate after having found sufficient ground  for       proceeding in case and issued summons under Section  204  Cr.P.C.  has       the jurisdiction to recall … Continue reading

Licence is must under sec.394 (1)(e) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 for running a Eating house/Catering establishment by any club whether for it’s members or for commercial purpose = Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and another ….Appellants versus Willingdon Sports Club and others ….Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40987

Licence is must under sec.394 (1)(e) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 for     running a Eating house/Catering establishment by any club whether for it’s members or for commercial purpose =        Section 394(1)(e) and relevant extracts of Schedule  ‘M’,  which  have   bearing on this case read as under:       … Continue reading

Whether the second wife married during the life time of first wife can file a maintenance case under sec. 125 Cr.P.C. – yes , if she was kept in dark about first marriage = Badshah ….Petitioner Versus Sou.Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. …Respondents – judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40886

Whether the second wife married during the life time of first wife can file a maintenance case     under sec. 125 Cr.P.C. – yes , if she was kept in dark about first marriage =       the judgments of  this  Court  in  Adhav  and         Savitaben cases would apply only … Continue reading

Block listing permanently – not correct= M/s Kulja Industries Limited …Appellant Versus Chief Gen. Manager W.T. Proj. BSNL & Ors. …Respondents= published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40855

Block listing permanently – not correct – remanded for fresh determination as per the department guidelines =         Paras   31 and 32 of the bid  document  also,  according  to  the  learned  counsel,   provides for blacklisting only for a “suitable period”.  This  implies  that   blacklisting had to be for a … Continue reading

Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short ‘the N.I. Act) by the IXth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bandra, Mumbai in Complaint Case Nos. 292/S/1998, 293/S/1998, 297/S/1998, 298/S/1998, 299/S/1998 and 300/S/1998.= Power of Attorney holder = the attorney holder cannot file a complaint in his own name as if he was the complainant, but he can initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of his principal. We also reiterate that where the payee is a proprietary concern, the complaint can be filed (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern, describing himself as the sole proprietor of the “payee”; (ii) the proprietary concern, describing itself as a sole proprietary concern, represented by its sole proprietor; and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney holder under a power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor.= While holding that there is no serious conflict between the decisions in MMTC (supra) and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra), we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: (i) Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of N.I Act through power of attorney is perfectly legal and competent. (ii) The Power of Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the Court in order to prove the contents of the complaint. However, the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions. (iii) It is required by the complainant to make specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint and the power of attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transactions cannot be examined as a witness in the case. (iv) In the light of section 145 of N.I Act, it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act and the Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain present before the Court, nor to examine the complainant of his witness upon oath for taking the decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. (v) The functions under the general power of attorney cannot be delegated to another person without specific clause permitting the same in the power of attorney. Nevertheless, the general power of attorney itself can be cancelled and be given to another person.

published in   http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40769  REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2007   A.C. Narayanan …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. …. Respondent(s) WITH 2 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2724 of 2008)   Shri G. Kamalakar …. Appellant(s) … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,848,829 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,901 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com