Mumbai Court October 2009 Judgments

Shri Ganesh Madhavrao Maslekar Vs. Shri Sandeep V. Marne

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) This is an appeal filed by the original complainant whose Consumer Complaint No.14/2008 was dismissed by the Central Mumbai District Consumer Forum by its order dated 22/5/2008. 2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: 3) Complainant had filed consumer complaint against Mr. Sandeep V. Marne, Adv. alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.P. He pleaded in his complaint that he was working as Transmission Executive in All India Radio Aurangabad. On 23/4/2002, the Director of AIR, Aurangabad informed him that he has been transferred to Dhule. On his request, for 8 months, he was retained at Aurangabad and on 7/11/2002 he was relieved from Aurangabad. Hence, he filed O.A.No.970/2002 in Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. He had engaged O.P. Adv.Mr.Marne as his advocate to argue the case. The CAT was pleased to hear both the parties on his petition and on 28/3/2003 his petition was rejected. While reject...

Sunil S/O Damodhar Gaikwad Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010CriLJ740

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. The appellant - Sunil Damodhar Gaikwad was charged for committing murder of his wife and two minor sons. He was charged for attempt to commit murder of his daughter, Prosecution Witness No. 1 - Gayatri. The family of the accused was staying in Dabhade Galli, Gevrai, District Beed. They had accommodation consisting of two rooms in the house which was belonged to his maternal aunt, Mangal. On 8th July 2008, it is alleged, that the appellant At about 3.30 a.m. in the mid night of 7th July 2008 and 8th July 2008 reached his house after purchasing a scissor. He separated two blades of the scissor. The appellant, it is alleged, first assaulted his wife by giving few blows. Thereafter he gave blows to his son Onkar, aged 9 years and other son, Akash, aged 7 years and thereafter assaulted PW 1 Gayatri. The appellant thereafter went to police station Gevrai and, it is alleged that, he made a statement before police regarding the incident happened. The police registered the...

Dr. Vijaypat Singhania and ors. Vs. Hari Shankar Singhania and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR303; 2009(111)BomLR4374

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. These are two petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( the Act).2. An arbitration Award dated 04.08.2008, which is modified on 12.09.2008, has been challenged by the two branches of a Singhania family, the Bombay group and the Kanpur group, as dissatisfied and aggrieved by the 1/3rd share of distribution and partition of the family firm M/s. J.K. Bankers properties. One branch, the Calcutta group supports the same. The Petitioners in Arbitration Petition No. 570 of 2008 are one of the three groups of the Singhania family, a Bombay Group. Respondents 1 to 6 and Respondents 7 to 15 are the other two groups being the Calcutta Group and the Kanpur Group respectively. Arbitration Petition No. 6 of 2009 is filed by the Kanpur group. The Respondents are other two groups.3. The background of the family dispute can be gathered from the following events:4. Late Lala Kamlapat Singhania started his business at Kanpur many long ago in the name ...

Engineering Enterprise Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(170)LC167(Bombay); 2009(244)ELT342(Bom)

D.G. Karnik, J.1. The short question that arises for our consideration is whether fibre tip pens exported by the petitioner fall under Chapter Heading 96 of the Drawback Schedule entitling the petitioner to claim a duty drawback.2. The petitioner manufactures and exports goods which are classified by it as fibre tip pens. On export of the goods, the petitioner made a claim for duty drawback claiming them to be 'fibre tip pens'. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Drawback (EDI) Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Mumbai (respondent No. 3 herein) on 21st April 2004 as to why the duty drawback claims made by it be not rejected on the ground that the goods exported were not writing instruments, but were parts of a plotter or a plotter used as a marking system. The petitioner showed cause. However, by an order dated 29th April 2005, the respondent No. 3 rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that the goods exported by the petitioner were n...

Mr. Premnath Jaganath Kanojia Vs. Mr. Rajesh B. Kanekia

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Perused the record. To support the alleged agreement for transaction for purchase of shop no.10, complainant has produced on record a copy of letter dated 10/1/1998 from one M/s. Kanakia Properties Pvt. Ltd. Complainant does not mention as to how the O.P. Mr. Rajesh B. Kanekia is connected with said M/s. Kanakia Properties Pvt. Ltd. Further, besides said letter dated 10/1/1998, there is no other document, particularly, the agreement is produced before us. It is not made clear and there is no statement in the complaint as to whether any regular agreement to purchase the shop had taken place. It is only mentioned that after making the payment towards the purchase of the shop, when on 19/1/2000 complainant made a site visit, there was no trace or any evidence of starting of the construction at all and they were informed about the property being involved in a court litigation. No further action has been taken and then in ...

Shri Bappuso Tatu Kamble Vs. Shri R.U. Kamble

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment/award passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Satara in Complaint No. 94/2008, whereby the forum below was pleased to allow the complaint vide judgment dated 09.07.2008. Not satisfied with the relief granted by the forum below the Complainant has filed this appeal. 2. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: Complainant had filed consumer complaint against Consulting Engineer and Contractor, the Opposite Party herein. He pleaded that he owned Property No.803 at Patan. He wanted to construct house on his land. He contacted Opposite Party for the construction of house. Opposite party accordingly got the plans sanctioned. He executed agreement with the Opposite Party and as per agreement the ground floor was to be constructed by Opposite Party for the amount of Rs.2,04,000/-. Complainant actually paid Rs.3,40,000/- under installments as per completion of ...

Aher Auto Private Limited, Regd. Office: Kalyan (West) Vs. Shri Indrap ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment/award passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Thane, in Consumer Complaint No.543/2007 decided on 15.11.2008, where by allowing the complaint, the forum below directed the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 to take back old vehicle sold to the Complainant and to give him new Hero Honda Motor Cycle without any defects to the Complainant without charging anything from him. The Forum below also directed the Opposite Parties to pay R.T.O. taxes and octroi for the new vehicle to be given to the Complainant. Forum below also directed the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint, the original Opposite Party No.1 Aher Auto Pvt. Ltd., has filed this appeal. 2. The facts to the extent appeal may be stated as under: Complainant had filed a consumer complaint against the Opposite Party No.1, dealer of the vehicle and Opposite Party No.2 Hero Ho...

Dattatraya Anant Kulkarni Vs. Chairman Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumba ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mrs. S.P. Lale, Honble Member Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of dismissal passed by Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Pune in consumer complaint No.757/2001 decided on 26/10/2007, org. complainant has filed present appeal. The case of complainant before the Forum below was that he had applied for Reliance Polythelene Ltd. (RPEL) and Reliance Polypropylene Ltd. (RPPL) equity shares and debentures floated by Reliance Industries Ltd. in the month of November 1992 for 600 number of shares and 600 number of debentures for both issues and paid Rs.9,000/- for each issue. RPEL issued 100 shares/600 debentures and RPPL issued 700 debentures. According to the complainant, 100 RPEL shares were not enclosed along with 600 debentures and RPPL disbursed only 700 debentures to the complainant and no allotment letters were enclosed. Therefore, complainant was unable to make balance payment of allotment money. Complainant wrote several letters, but Company did not respond...

Mr. Pradeep H. Shinde Vs. M/S. Lodha Construction and Another

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Matter taken up today as per the request of both the parties. Application to take appeal on board taken on record. Granted. Both the parties filed consent terms cum withdrawal pursis. Verified and taken on record. Authorization letter dated 30/9/2009 in favour of Mr.Deepak Lodha taken on record. Hence the order:- Order Appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....