Mumbai Court October 2009 Judgments

M/S. Nandan Builders Through Its Partner-mr. Niranjan P. Ray, Pune Vs. ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. Heard Ms. Pallavi Khangaonkar-Advocate h/f. Mrs. A.W. Barve-Advocate for the respondent. None for the appellant. 2. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Nandan Builders/org. O.P. against judgment and award passed by District Consumer Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no.PDF/29/95 decided on 18/5/1999, whereby while allowing the complaint, Forum below directed original opponent to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- to the complainant along with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. 3. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- Respondent herein had filed consumer complaint in the District Consumer Forum, Pune for claiming the amount of Rs.21,000/- with interest from the builder. According to complainant, he had booked flat no.7 on the first floor in the building no.3 at Gopinath nagar, Pune, being constructed by M/s.Nandan Builders-O.P. He had booked the flat admeasuring...

The Executive Engineer, Nashik Irrigation Division Vs. Shri Gulab Begu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4451

S.S. Shinde, J.1. These petitions are filed challenging the common judgment and award dated 13/14th July, 2004 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Reference (IDA) Nos. 296, 297, 298, 299, 374 AND 375 OF 1994.2. The background facts of the case are as under:The Labour Court, Ahmednagar has decided the group of six references by taking into consideration the statements of claim filed by the parties whereby it is the contention of the respondents herein that right from 1st April, 1985 till 20th September, 1988 the work as Mazdoor was given to the respondents in all writ petitions. Their services came to be terminated orally on 20th September, 1988. It is the case of the respondents, who are original claimants, that their services for the period from 1.4.1985 till 20th September, 1988 are clean and continuous in nature and the provisions of Kalelkar Award do apply to their cases and they are entitled for the benefits and wages accordingly. It is further case of the respondents that t...

Navelcar Hotels, Represented in This Act by Its Partner Mr. Harish Vin ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR270

A.H. Joshi, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of interlocutory Order passed by the District Judge-2, Panaji in Civil Suit No. 76/2008 filed by the appellants under the provisions of Trade Marks Act seeking action against passing off.2. In the said suit, by application Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C., the plaintiffs sought the relief of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from using the trade/service mark 'Rajdhani' being identical and deceptively similar to the trade/service mark 'Rajdhani' claimed to be in use by the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs they are running the business of hotels providing temporary accommodation, restaurant, hotel accommodation and other related services, including in their hotel 'Rajdhani' which is run at Panaji.3. Plaintiffs came to know that the defendants have acquired property at Panaji and are about to commence their restaurant under the title 'Rajdhani', in order to restrain the defendants from opening a restaurant and using...

Godrej Industries Ltd. a Public Limited Company Incorporated and Regis ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR360

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. By consent of the parties, heard finally.2. The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) as dispute arose between the parties arising out of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) having arbitration clause No. 28 which reads as under:28. Any dispute or difference between the parties hereto including in respect of any breach or alleged breach hereof, shall be referred to the sole arbitration of a person to be mutually agreed upon by the parties hereto. The sole arbitrator shall have summary powers and the Arbitrator shall not be required to give reasons for his award. The place for arbitration shall be at Bombay.3. The basic facts/events, as per the petitioner, are:The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 inter alia carries on the business of manufacturing, marketing and distribution of various industrial chemicals, chemicals, etc.4. The respondents ...

Vshnu Horticultural Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Shampiyan Viniyard Ltd. and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR328

ORDERD.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself.2. Where, in any suit, after the defendant has appeared and filed written statement, the plaint is returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whether the defendant can file fresh written statement with the averments which did not find place in the original written statement filed before the Court which had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, is the question raised in this petition.3. The petitioners are original defendants (for short, 'the defendants'). The respondents-plaintiffs (for short, 'the plaintiffs') instituted a suit being Special Civil Suit No. 18 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr Dn, Kolhapur for recovery of an amount and in the alternati...

Dattatraya Ramanna Mane Vs. Babu Nayaz Pathan and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR847

Mhatre Nishita, J.1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the II Additional District Judge, Solapur dated 28.7.1988 which confirms the judgment and order of the trial Court i.e. the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur in Special Civil Suit No. 76 of 1979 dated 13.8.1985.2. The plaintiff ie. the appellant herein claims that he entered into an agreement with the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the respondents herein, to purchase their land for consideration of Rs. 27,000/-. According to the plaintiff, he paid an amount of Rs. 20,625/-and an agreement for sale of the land in his favour was executed by the defendants on 16.1.1978. The plaintiff claims that on the next date, he paid a further sum of Rs. 1375/- to the defendants which they have acknowledged and on 6.7.1978 another sum of Rs. 1,000/-. According to the plaintiff, he paid an amount of Rs. 23,000/- out of total consideration of Rs. 27,000/- to the defendants. The plaintiff claims that despite his requ...

Rizvi Estates and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bandra (W), Mumbai Vs. Mr.Parasnat ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal arises out of order/award dated 28/07/1999 passed in consumer complaint No.322/1996, Mr.Parasnath Mishra and Anr. V/s. Rizvi Estates and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Forum below in short). A consumer complaint was made to claim back the amount deposited with the builder towards stamp duty for specific purpose and which the builder has not utilized. Forum below awarded the claim and feeling aggrieved thereby, the builder preferred this appeal. Undisputed facts are that respondents/complainants agreed to purchase flat Nos.C-101, C-102 and C-103 from the appellant/original opposite party (hereinafter referred as builder) as per the agreements executed on or about 29/09/1986. It is also not disputed that consequent to the said agreements, builder recovered stamp duty from the flat purchasers including complainants viz. flat purchasers of the flats Nos. C-101,...

Shri Tanaji Kondiba Mane, Vijaynagar Annex, Mumbai Vs. MomIn Construct ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member. 1. This appeal has been filed by the Original Complainant himself who is aggrieved by the judgement/order dated 29.09.2007 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 388/2002, which had been dismissed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District - Satara. 2. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under: Complainant is resident of Ghodbunder Road, Kavesar, Thane. He had filed consumer complaint against Momin Constructions of Village -Tarale, Taluka Patan, District Satara, in Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District - Satara. He pleaded that, he had decided to construct house at Village Chorade, Taluka Khatav, District Satara. He contacted Opposite Party who is in construction business. He agreed to get constructed his house from Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.3,25,000/-, which would be in RCC structure. According to Complainant he paid to Opposite Party from time to time cash amount of Rs.3,25,000/- and Opposite...

Mrs. Madeline Pereira Widow Indian National Business Person, Authorize ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR327

A.H. Joshi, J.1. This is a petition by a person who claims to be authorised in respect of final settlement of assets and liabilities of the dissolved society, namely as described in the cause title.Facts & Background2. The respondent No. 6 filed writ petition in this Court bearing No. 261/1991 and sought declaration that workers engaged by Handling Agents through Mormugao Handling Agents Association herein after referred to for short as 'the Association' be absorbed in the employment of respondent No. 4 who was respondent No. 1 in the writ petition. The Union claimed that workers were employees of respondent No. 4 i.e. Mormugao Port Trust and in turn not the employees of either the Association or its members who were handling agents.3. In said writ petition No. 261/1991 Court passed judgment and order on 20.9.2004 and gave a direction to the Central Government which reads as follows:We, therefore, direct the respondent No. 3 to forward a copy of this petition to the concerned Labour Co...

Surendra Ramnarayan Shivhare Vs. Chairman Cum Managing Director, Weste ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR266; 2009(111)BomLR4465

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Present applicant has filed this application for review of the order passed by this Court on 25.01.2007 whereby Civil Revision Application filed by present non applicant was allowed.2. Facts giving rise to this review application are as follows:Applicant was entrusted with a work of repairs to certain road by the non applicant under a contract. The contract contained a clause that in case of a dispute between parties the dispute shall be referred to Arbitrator and the non applicants Managing Director would appoint Arbitrator. The dispute arose. A reference was sought by the applicant by a notice. Non applicant ignored the notice. Later proceedings under Section 20 were filed and the non applicant agreed for a reference. The non applicant appointed Shri S. L. Doshi Chief Mining Engineer serving with the non applicant as an Arbitrator and made a reference to him by memo dated 15.07.1987. The applicant felt that Shri S. L. Doshi was not an indedpendent person and was ...