Mumbai Court October 2009 Judgments

Kum. Ratnabai D/O Adhar Pardeshi and Smt. Indirabai Adhar Pardeshi Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4472

S.S. Shinde, J.1. Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of the parties.2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 12/4/2007 passed by the 5th Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Dhule.3. The background facts of the case as disclosed in the petition are as under.The petitioner No. 1 is a daughter of petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 1 ( now deceased). The respondent No. 2 is the grand mother of the petitioner No. 1, whereas the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the purchasers of the joint family property from the defendant No. 1. Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 are proposed respondents who are also subsequent purchasers.The petitioner No. 1 had filed R.C.S. No. 288 of 2000 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.), Dhule for partition and separate possession of the suit property.After the death of the original defendant No. 1, namely Adhar S/o Ukha, the plaintiff No. 2, who is the widow of defendant No. 1, has been brought on record as plaintiff No. 2. According to the plaintiff...

Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd. Registered Under the Companies Act, 1956 Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR316; 2009(111)BomLR4332

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. All these three petitions have raised the common challenge and, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. All the petitions challenge the Government Notification dated 25/4/2000 as well as the subsequent Notification dated 4/4/2001 issued through the Department of Labour, Energy and Industries of the State Government under Section 5A of the Bombay Electricity Act, 1958 ('the Act' for short). By the first Government Resolution dated 25/4/2000 the exemption of payment of electricity duty for captive generation of power, by non conventional or conventional sources, as available prior to the said date came to be withdrawn except the industries in the co-operative sector and electricity duty at 30 paise per unit on generation of power for captive consumption was levied with effect from 1/4/2000. Whereas by the second Notification dated 4th April 2001 the State Government exempted with retrospective effect from 1st April 2000, the consumption of energy ...

Kisanlal S/O Dagdulal Rathi and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. the State of Mahara ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4292

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This group of petitions is being decided together in as much as the petitioners seek quashing of First Information Reports (FIRs), registered against them at Chalisgaon Police Station, for offences punishable under Section 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120 read with Section 34 of the I.P. Code.2. The Chalisgaon Peoples Cooperative Bank Limited (for short, CPCO Bank) is a Cooperative Bank. A large number of depositors invested their amounts by way of deposits in the CPCO Bank. The CPCO Bank was under management of a Board of Directors. Indisputably, an Liquidator is now appointed and is managing the affairs of the CPCO Bank. It is undisputed that a Special Auditor carried out audit of the CPCO Bank for the period between 1991-92 to 2005-06. He prepared audit inspection notes. He noticed a large number of misdeeds committed by the Directors and borrowers of the CPCO Bank during the period under the audit inspection. He noticed that some of the Directors and the...

Union of India (Uoi) Acting Through Deputy Chief Engineer (Constructio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj615

S.S. Shinde, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the petition is taken up for hearing immediately. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the III Joint C.J.S.D. Jalgaon below Exh.70 in C.M.A. No. 593 of 2005 dated 21.4.2008.2. The petitioner herein filed Civil Arbitration Application No. 593 of 2005 before the Joint C.J.S.D. Jalgaon under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. and Section 151 of C.P.C. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has filed civil arbitration application No. 593 of 2005 and the said application is pending for arguments before the trail court. It is further case of the petitioner that on going through the memo of petition, he feels that it is necessary to amend the petition in the interest of justice, therefore, by way of filing above mentioned application, the petitioner prayed that the amendment may kindly be allowed as the amendment is not going to change the nature of the petition and no prejudice would be caused to the ...

Ratnabai Adhar Pardeshi and anr. Vs. Adhar Ukha Pardeshi and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR259

Shinde S.S., J.1. Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of the parties.2. This writ petition is filed challenging the Order dated 12/4/2007 passed by the 5th Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Dhule.3. The back-ground facts of the case as disclosed in the petition are as under.The petitioner No. 1 is a daughter of petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 1 (now deceased). The respondent No. 2 is the grand mother of the petitioner No. 1, whereas the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the purchasers of the joint family property from the defendant No. 1. Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 are proposed respondents who are also subsequent purchasers.The petitioner No. 1 had filed R.C.S. No. 288 of 2000 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.), Dhule for partition and separate possession of the suit property.After the death of the original defendant No. 1, namely Adhar S/o Ukha, the plaintiff No. 2, who is the widow of defendant No. 1, has been brought on record as plaintiff No. 2. According to the plaintiff...

Smt. Smita Vikas Balwadkar Vs. Dr. Deshpande Surgical and Maternity Nu ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum, rejecting the application for amendment moved by the complainant in pending complaint no.720/2000 dated 25/9/2008, the original complainant has filed this revision petition challenging the said rejection. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- 2. Complainant had filed consumer complaint no.720/2000 against Dr.Deshpande Surgical and Maternity Nursing Home, Kurla, Mumbai alleging medical negligence against the said hospital. According to her, she had approached O.P. hospital since she was expecting delivery. It was her first child. She was admitted in a hospital. After the baby was delivered, certain complications developed and baby had to be transferred to the care and management of Specialist Dr.Sharat Menon. While under care and management of Dr.Sharat Menon, infant child expired on the second day in Sheetal Children Hospital, bel...

Dr. Kishor Parashavnath Magdum and Another Vs. Mr. Balaji Manikrao Sur ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This revision petition is directed against the order passed in consumer complaint no.765/2008 below exhibit-26, whereby the Forum below rejected the application of opposite party to procure expert opinion from medical board in pending complaint. This application was filed at exhibit-26 by opposite party on 28/04/2009 whereas the complaint was registered and notice was issued to opposite party on 21/07/2008. Thereafter, the opposite party had filed written statement on 07/10/2008. When the case was ripe for hearing, an application below exhibit-26 was moved by opposite party that papers should be sent to Government Medical College, Miraj to seek expert opinion. This was rejected by the Forum below by its order dated 20/07/2009. As such, the original opposite party has filed this revision. We heard Adv. Shri A.J. Chougule for the petitioners. We are finding at the stage of admission itself that the said revision is ...

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Railway Lines, Solapur and Anothe ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S. R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member. This appeal arises out of order/judgment dated 03.12.2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 266/2008, between Smt. Shakuntala Shivdas Waghmode V/s. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Solapur. Undisputed facts are that, late Shivdas Waghmode, husband of Complainant Shakuntala Waghmode, was insured with Appellant/Original Opposite Party and had taken two life insurance policies, viz. of Rs.50,000/- dated 15.07.2004 and of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 10.02.2006. Insurance premiums were regularly paid. On 23.08.2006 late Shivdas Waghmode, suffered a stroke of paralysis and ultimately died on 14.11.2006. Insurance claims were made under the above referred policies which stood repudiated on the ground of concealment of material fact about pre-existing ailment of diabetes mellitus. Therefore consumer complaint was filed, which stood decreed and feeling aggrieved thereby this ap...

M/S. Everest Developers O/at Everest Square, Junction of Shraddhanand, ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member This appeal arises out of order/award dated 15/11/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.29/2007 Smt.Banajyoshna Panigrahee V/s. M/s. Everest Developers and Anr. by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Thane (Forum below in short). It is a consumer complaint against the builder and as per impugned order/award, on making payment of balance consideration, the builder was directed to hand over possession of the flats and alternatively, the builder was directed to refund earnest amount of Rs.1 Lakh along with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 14/04/2006. In addition to it, the builder was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost. The builder, as it appeared, opted to satisfy the impugned order by making payment of refund of earnest amount, compensation and cost awarded and accordingly, tendered the amount by Pay Orders before the Forum below on 15/12/2008. Shortly before ...

The Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Mr. Rajendra ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Smt. S. P. Lale, Honble Member. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.08.2009 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 18/2008 by District Forum, Thane, whereby Forum below directed the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3, jointly and severally to pay Rs.2,30,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum to the Complainant. The forum below further directed Opposite Parties to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/- towards costs of the complaint. Being aggrieved by the said order the Opposite Parties have filed the present appeal. 2. The case of the complaint before the forum below was that the Complainant had obtained a Good Health Insurance Mediclaim Policy from the Opposite Party in the year 2000 and the said policy was renewed from time to time till 2007 with good health policy. The sum insured was Rs.2,30,000/-. According to Complainant he had mild chest pain radiating to left arm with vomiting. Therefore, he was admitted to Meher Hospital at Bhiwandi on 1...