Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of Civil Contractor and an architect, namely, O.P.no.1 and O.P.no.2 to build a bungalow as per sanctioned plan and to obtain Completion certificate and which resulted into non-delivery of possession of the bungalow, as agreed; compensation is claimed to the extent of Rs.1,10,000/- for mental tension, agony and for disturbing peaceful life. Other claims made viz. direction against opposite parties to hand over possession after completing the construction work as per the sanctioned plan, damages for delay in handing over the possession, and remaining reliefs are not pressed at the time of arguments and are given up on behalf of the complainant since she has sold the property, as per submissions made by her counsel. 2. Undisputed facts are that complainant engaged services of O.P.no.1 Mr. Shivaji Thorat, a Civil Contractor to construct a bungalow at Nasik Road at plot no.33 situated at A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Per Mrs. S.P. Lale, Honble Member The issues involved in both these appeals are one and the same. Builder is also common and hence, we are proceeding to dispose of both these appeals by this common order. Complainant filed consumer complaint No.390/2007 and 398/2007 against O.P./builder before District Consumer Forum Thane for not giving possession of two flats to the complainant. According to the complainant he had purchased flat bearing No.401 and 402 on 4th floor in A wing in the building known as NG Vikas and each flat admeasuring 379.88 sq.ft. in area. Cost of the flat No.401 was Rs.8,24,600/-. Accordingly, Agreement for Sale was registered on 25/04/20096. As per complainant, he paid Rs.5,50,000/- out of Rs.8,24,600/- to the O.P. as part consideration. Complainant further submits he approached O.P. and requested for possession of the flat after receipts of balance consideration amount. However, O.P. failed to hand over possession of the flat to the complainant. In case of flat No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order: Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member The dispute involved in this appeal is settled out of court. Hence appellant seeks permission for withdrawal of appeal by filing misc. application. Hence the following order:- Order 1. Misc. application is allowed. 2. Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn. 3. Appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn. 4. Amount deposited by the appellant while preferring this appeal be refunded to the appellant. 5. No order as to costs. 6. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This consumer complaint arises out of deemed repudiation of an insurance claim relating to damage caused to the goods imported from Japan en-route to be installed at the factory of the complainant at Daman under the Marine Cargo policy, which subsequently extended to Erection all risks insurance policy, issued by the O.P.-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Herein after referred as Insurance Company). 2. Complainant M/s. Heaven Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred as complainant) which is a private limited company engaged in diamond cutting and polishing business. They had imported following machinery from Yamazaki Mazak Trading Corporation, which was transshipped in a cargo vessel named as Arunachal Pradesh from port Kobe (Japan) to port Mumbai (India): 1 unit MAZAK CNC LATHE MULTIPLEX 650 (ONE) 1 unit MAZAK CNC LATHE SQT 15 MSY (ONE) 1 set 126 nos. SPARE TOOLS AS PER INDENT NO. 020/97 dated 28/3/97 All for a total price...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member 1. According to complainant, two Term loans bearing nos.2/89 and 2/90 were sanctioned by the O.P. to the complainant for the purchase of two injection moulding machines IS-80 and IS-200 in order to enhance the productivity of the Small Scale Industrial Unit. When the term loans were sanctioned to the complainant for the SSI unit, O.P. bank obtained refinance from the IDBI at concessional rate of interest under the IDBI refinance scheme. It is alleged by the complainant that in spite of O.P. obtaining refinance from IDBI, interest of the rebate was not passed on to the complainant at the material time. Under the scheme complainant should have been charged interest @ 14% p.a. amounting to Rs.5,94,751/- instead of interest charged @ 17.50% amounting to Rs.10,89,932/-. Hence according to complainant, interest which should have been refunded to the complainant was a sum of Rs.4,17,521/-. 2. It is further alleged by the complainant that the O.P. has already...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Per Shri P. N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member. (1) Complainant Shri Balkrishna Mahadev Kare, a resident of Chinchwad, Pune, filed this consumer complaint against the Opposite Party No.1 Dr. P.N. Nagpal of Ahmedabad and also against K.E.M. Hospital, Rastha Peth, Pune Opposite Party No.2, alleging negligence in the services rendered by both the Opposite Parties. (2) He pleaded that, he received one letter from Dr. P.N. Nagpal on 06.05.1995 and acting upon the said letter and other annexures he was approaching this Commission for redressal of his grievances. He mentioned in Para No.2 of the complaint that from the facts and circumstances as disclosed in the synopsis and list of dates, it is clear that he had taken all the treatment, had undergone of the operations, took medicines prescribed as per advice of doctors and committed no mistake in taking treatment and in spite of the treatment his right eye is lost due to improper treatment and negligence of the Doctors. They r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Appellant and Respondents in this Appeal No.881/2008 have arrived at consent terms before the Lok Adalat held on 16/10/2009 and have compromised the matter in presence of Panel Members. They have executed proforma as well as consent terms before the members of Lok Adalat. Consent terms shall be binding on both the parties and in case of default committed by either party, other party shall be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission to execute the said consent terms as if it is a decree passed by this Commission. Order:- 1. Appeal as such stands disposed of in terms of consent terms, which shall form part of the award. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2010(1)BomCR352; 2010(1)MhLj470
Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties taken up for hearing forthwith.2. The petitioner claims to belong to Chamar caste by birth which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 3/1/08 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Division ('Scrutiny Committee' for short) with further direction to the Scrutiny Committee to issue certificate of validity in respect of caste certificate dated 5/8/04 issued by the Deputy Collector, Thane. The petitioner has prayed for a declaration that caste certificate dated 5/8/04 issued in her favour is valid, legal and subsisting. The petitioner has also sought directions to respondents 3 and 4 to handover B Tech degree to her and to release her mark sheets to her.3. The petitioner was born on 19/3/1986 at Mulund, Mumbai. She was admitted to the Omkar English Medium School, Dombi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR4629
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This resent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd January, 2009, passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court No. 6 at Bandra, Mumbai, by which the learned trial Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent husband has been dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. The respondent wife preferred Petition No. A 693 of 2004 for a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The marriage of the appellant husband and the respondent wife was solemnized on 26th June, 2002 at Nasik as per Hindu Vedic Rites. After the marriage, the respondent went to U.S.A. along with the appellant. It is the case of the respondent that after reaching U.S., the appellant insisted the respondent that the respondent should change her life style and follow the American life style. He insisted her to cut her hair and compelled her t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR4550
Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court noticing an apparent conflict with the views taken in Keshrimal J. Shah v. Bank of India 2004 (4) Bom. C.R. 842, the judgment in Dr. Anil Nandkishor Tibrewala v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 1684 of 2006 decided on 11th July, 2006 on the one hand, and the view taken in Sarvadaman M. Joshi and Ors. v. The Recovery Officer and Ors. Writ Petition No. 5405 of 2005, accordingly directed the Registry to place the matter before the learned Chief Justice under Rule 28 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature, Bombay, Original Side, for consideration by a Larger Bench. The questions referred are:1. Whether in view of the provisions of Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 read with Rules 11(1) and 11(6) of the, Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 a person against whom an order is passed is entitled to institute a suit in a civil Court, or whether ...
Tag this Judgment!