Mumbai Court October 2009 Judgments

Laheribai J. Trivedi (Since Deceased) Vs. Dharamdatta V. Trivedi and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR870

Oka A.S., J.1. By order dated 28th July, 2009, this Court directed that this petition shall be heard finally at the stage of admission. The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard earlier. One of the issues involved in this petition is whether a revision application under Section 29(3) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rents Control Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as said Act of 1947) was maintainable.2. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the original defendants. The suit was filed in the year 1982 for possession against respondents under the provision of the said Act of 1947. The present petitioners are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff. An application was made by the petitioners seeking permission to delete the names of 2nd to 4th respondents. The said application was filed by the petitioner No. 1(c) on 31st March, 2005. According to the petitioners, they along with their Advocate were un...

Dr. Sakharam Kisan Gadekar, G.C.E.H. Vs. Pune Neurosciences Trust and ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Mr. Aditya Bapat-Advocate for the O.Ps files his Vakalatnama. Taken on record. He also files written objection to the application for condonation of delay. Taken on record. In the instant case, Dr.Sakharam Kisan Gadekar-Medical Practitioner was operated for Spinal Intradural Epidermoid D2-D3 level on 15/10/2004. He had weakness and stiffness in both the lower limbs, known case of Diabetes Mallets. After hospitalization and surgical treatment and after showing the recovery, he was discharged on 21/1/2005, from the hospital of O.P. Complainant was under continuous medical treatment thereafter. However, according to him, he came to know about alleged medical negligence on the part of O.P. for the treatment received in the year 2004-2005, supra, after he obtained a disability certificate from the Medical Board of B.J.Medical College and Sassoon General Hospitals, Pune on 16/3/2009, which records that he has 85% disabilit...

Mr.Laxmichand M.Shah Vs. M/S.Dura Tech, Developer and Others

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Consumer complaint pertains to implementation of the consent terms filed in Small Causes Court in R.A.E. Suit no.1468/2146 of 2006 recorded on 11th day of December 2008. Anything pertaining to it will not be a consumer dispute. If any payment is not made as per the consent terms, the remedy is before the regular Civil Court before whom the suit is filed and not before the Consumer Fora. Under the circumstances, we find no merit in this consumer complaint and hence it stands rejected. Order Complaint stands rejected. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Shri Subhrajit Saha Vs. Shri AshwIn Pardeshi Prop. Aditya Enterprises

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This is an appeal filed by the original complainant, whose complaint has been dismissed by the District Consumer Forum, Nasik, vide judgment in consumer complaint no.125/2008 on 16/12/2008. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- 2. Complainant is a resident of Nandgaon(Central Railway), District Nasik. He appears to be a railway employee. He had purchased assembled P.C. for Rs.23,750/-, but he was to pay installments towards the cost of the P.C. on 28/3/2007. He paid Rs.7000/- on 28/3/2007 and on 29/6/2007, he paid Rs.8000/- and then according to complainant he paid Rs.8750/- on 17/7/2007. But despite payment, the O.P. is not making internet operational on his PC. He is demanding for more monies and since monies were not paid, O.P. has created defects in his PC. He has not installed internet and therefore, he is suffering financial loss. As such, he filed consumer complaint. 3. O.P. filed written st...

Shri Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Co-op.Bank Ltd., Sangli Through Its ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This is an appeal filed by the original O.P. Shri Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Co-op.Bank Ltd., Solapur against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Forum, Solapur in consumer complaint no.40/2008 decided on 11/7/2008, whereby while allowing the complaint, Forum below directed the bank to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.48,000/- which he deposited in the bank as fixed deposit receipt, as per the rules in force applicable to premature withdrawal of FDRs and also to pay to the complainant Rs.2000/- for mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost. 2. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- Complainant is a resident of Solapur and is senior citizen. He had deposited vide FDR no.169319 on 1/9/2006 a sum of Rs.48,000/- with the O.P. Bank. Quarterly interest was being deposited in his saving bank account no.436. Complainant needed certain amount, particularly, for the operation of his wife...

Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Through Its Registrar Vs. Vitthal Sak ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4321; 2010(1)MhLj818

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is a Writ Petition filed by employer against the judgment and order dated 10.11.1995 of the learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, allowing Complaint (ULP) No. 19 of 1992 filed by present Respondent No. 1, thereby holding that the present writ petitioner employer had engaged into unfair labour practice as per items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('for short 'the MRTU & PULP Act') and directed the writ petitioner to make Respondent No. 1 permanent as Audio Visual Operator ('A.V. Operator' for short) with effect from 20.1.1992 and provide him status and privileges and all other consequential benefits and pay arrears accordingly.2. Briefly stated, it is the case of Respondent No. 1complainantemployee that he was appointed initially on 3.12.1985 as A.V. Operator and he worked continuously for more than 240 days with Petitioner Agricultural University which is running vario...

Godawari Marathwada Patbandhare Thorugh the Sub Divisional Officer, Mi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4191

S.S. Shinde, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 11.7.2001 passed in Reference IDA No. 11 of 1993 by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Ahmednagar.2. The background facts of the case are as under:The office of Deputy Commissioner of Labour Nashik submitted the said Reference under Sub-section 1 of Section 10 r.w. Sub-section 5 of Section 12 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 to the Labour Court.A demand notice was issued on 4.9.1991 alleging that second party i.e. respondent herein was engaged since last about six years in the employment of the petitioner, prior to his termination from the service. His services were terminated w.e.f. 26.7.1991 without pre intimation and illegally. It is further stated that the justification of claim was also submitted, however, due to failure of counsel, the reference was submitted. As per the contention of the first party i.e. the present petitioner, second party i.e. present respondent has not served for 240 days i...

Executive Engineer (C), Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Ehv Civil ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4045

F.M. Reis, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.2. The appellant ' Executive Engineer in First Appeal No. 141 of 2002, and the Appellant ' Uttamrao Bapurao Raut in First Appeal No. 240 of 2002, are hereinafter referred to as ' the Acquiring Body' and ' the claimant' respectively, while the respondent . State of Maharashtra is hereinafter referred to as ' the State Government..3. While First Appeal No. 141 of 2002 has been preferred by the Acquiring Body against the Judgment dated 31st December, 2003, delivered by learned Civil Judge [Senior Division], Pusad, in Land Acquisition Case No. 229 of 1995, whereby the Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act made by the claimant was partly allowed and a compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,49,744-00 was awarded along with other statutory benefits, the claimant has filed First Appeal No. 240 of 2002 challenging refusal of part of his claim for enhancement of compensation in the said impugned Judgment dated 31st December, 20...

Shrikant Gopalkrushna Tare and Vs. Vasant Nagorao Mahalley and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj168

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the original plaintiffs who lost in the first appellate Court. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:Plaintiffs and defendants mutually agreed to purchase field Survey No. 93/3 of village Lohara district Yavatmal from one Sonabai. Each of the plaintiffs and defendants contributed a sum of Rs. 4546/- towards the consideration. The sale deed was however obtained in the name of defendants 1 to 5. In order to evidence this arrangement an agreement was executed on 15.04.1982 between plaintiffs and defendants. It was agreed that each of the plaintiffs and defendants i. e. 11 persons would have equal share in the said field. It was agreed that the suit field should thereafter be converted to non agricultural use. It was also agreed that after the said field is converted to non agricultural use, all the plots will be equally distributed among the plaintiffs and defendants. Accordingly the said field was converted into a non agricult...

Ashishkant Prabookant Sen and ors. Vs. Jagoba Dashrath Jibhkate and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR838

Chaudhari A.B., J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. In the present writ petition, there is a challenge to the order dated 15/4/1993, passed by the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in Misc. Civil Application No. 278/1990, filed in a Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(d) of C.P.C., whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 6 months in filing the appeal before the Appellate Court.3. In support of the writ petition, Mr. Girish Choube, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a delay of 6 months and that was explained in paragraph Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the application for condonation of delay. The Appellate Court has in Paragraph Nos. 5 found that those reasons were not sufficient in order to satisfy the requirement of Section 5 of Limitation Act.4. The contesting respondents are absent. Mr. Saoji, Advocate, appears for respondent Nos. 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16.5. Having heard learned Counse...