Mumbai Court November 2009 Judgments

Mr. Lal Nathirlal Aswani Vs. M/S. Gigatech Private Ltd., and Others

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17/10/2008 passed by District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint no.515/2008, whereby Forum below rejected the complaint of the complainant. Complainant had booked two laptops for his personal use by paying cash of Rs.1,50,000/- to the O.P. O.P. agreed to hand over delivery of the said laptops within 20 days. It is alleged by the complainant that O.P. failed to supply and deliver the said laptops to the complainant within said agreed period of 20 days. Therefore, O.P. issued a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant. It is further stated by the complainant that said cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- was dischonoured by the bank for want of sufficient funds. Therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum for deficiency in service. However, said complaint was rejected at the admission stage on 17/10/2008 on the ground of maintainability. Being a...

Mr. Dilip Lal Aswani Vs. M/S. Gigatech Private Ltd., and Others

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17/10/2008 passed by District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint no.514/2008, whereby Forum below rejected the complaint of the complainant. Complainant had booked three laptops for his personal use by paying cash of Rs.1,70,000/- to the O.P. O.P. agreed to hand over delivery of the said laptops within 20 days. It is alleged by the complainant that O.P. failed to supply and deliver the said laptops to the complainant within said agreed period of 20 days. Therefore, O.P. issued a cheque of Rs.1,70,000/- to the complainant. It is further stated by the complainant that said cheque of Rs.1,70,000/- was dischonoured by the bank for want of sufficient funds. Therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum for deficiency in service. However, said complaint was rejected at the admission stage on 17/10/2008 on the ground of maintainability. Being...

Ms. Saroj Babasaheb Bhosle-naik Vs. Pal Peugeot Ltd., Dist. Thane and ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President: Heard Mr.Pankaj Deokar-Advocate for the complainant. Complainant has booked on 26/10/1995 car with O.P. no.2. O.P.no.1 is the manufacturer of the said car. O.P.no.2 is the dealer. In spite of booking of the said car, car was not delivered even though complainant was ready to pay balance amount and, therefore, complainant has filed this complaint for return of Rs.25,000/- booking amount along with interest @ 9% p.a. thereon and Rs.10,000/- as expenses incurred for following up by their demand for the refund the said amount. Complainant has claimed Rs.6 lakhs by way of damages for the financial loss and psychological disturbances caused to the complainant as stated in Exhibit D. In spite of service, opponents have not appeared in the matter. They have not filed reply. The amount is paid by the complainant by Demand Draft as is reflected from the booking form. Since the vehicle has not been given to the complainant O.Ps are jointl...

M/S. Sabir Builders Malkani Towers, Mumbai and Another Vs. Mr. Vishnu ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President: None present for the appellant. This matter was called on 16/11/2009. Matter was called twice and ultimately, it was adjourned on payment of cost of Rs.1000/-. Said order has not been complied with by the appellant. What is to be noted that date 16/11/2009 was specifically given to the appellants and Advocate of appellants has signed before the Registrar that he knows the returnable date and said order sheet has been received by him. This intimation was given to the appellants on 22/6/2009. In spite of this, he failed to attend on 16/11/2009 and on payment of cost of Rs.1000/- matter was adjourned today. However, said order has not been complied with. Today matter has been called twice. No one is present on behalf of the appellants. Appellants advocate is also not present. Difficulty of the advocate is also not explained. Hence the following order:- Order Appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution. Copies of the order be fu...

Mr. Allan S.F. Falerio Vs. State of Goa Through the Chief Secretary, S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR7

N.A. Britto, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking a writ of Quo Warranto against Respondent No. 2, the Captain of Ports, who has been appointed by Respondent No. 1, Government of Goa, upon the recommendations of the Goa Public Commission w.e.f. 21-11-1991, and, with a prayer which reads as follows:It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Quo Warranto directing the Respondents to disclose the authorities and/or jurisdiction of Respondent No. 2 to hold the office of Captain of Ports and/or enquire directing to vacate the office and remove him from the office and direct him not to usurp the office.2. Before we proceed to deal with the petition, it is necessary to deal with two preliminary objections taken on behalf of Respondent No. 2. The first is regarding delay, the petition having been filed only on 21-6-2009 after a gap of almost 18 years, and, the second is that the petition has been filed with oblique motives. The f...

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., a Banking Company Incorporated of the Bankin ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj814

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard finally, by consent of the parties.2. The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) as Respondents defaulted in making timely installments though agreed and that events of defaults are the basic cause of action for these Petitions.3. The Petitioner is common party to all these petitions and as Respondents are also common and interlinked, though they entered into four separate agreements. RespondentRajkumar Sharma, is the sole proprietor of Haryan Road Carriers and Mrs. Sarita Sharma is a proprietor of Shree Transport Service for whom Rajkumar Sharma holds the power of attorney. Therefore, this common judgment/order.4. The Petitioner is in the business of providing financial facilities such as Personal Loan, Home loan, Commercial Vehicle Loan etc.. Some time in the year 2005 and 2006, the Respondents approached the Petitioner for loan to purchase the vehicles. The Petitioner agreed to lend l...

Mr. Nilesh J. Patel Vs. Jagdusha Nagar Avdhut Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. an ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President Learned counsel on instructions of complainant states that he shall be allowed to withdraw the complaint with liberty to file it afresh before the appropriate forum. Hence the order:- Order Complaint is allowed to be withdrawn with such liberty. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Mr. Khemu Pursu Ankolekar Vs. Mr.Meghashyam Vasant Joshi

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President Heard Mr. S.D. Daware-Advocate for the petitioner. This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated nil passed in consumer complaint no.PDF/44/2009. Respondent/original complainant has filed the complaint seeking relief that the revision petitioner be directed to form a Corporate body, apartment/condominium, and execute conveyance deed in its favour, along with Deed of Apartments by a stipulated time bound programme and, further, it is prayed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreements as per the provisions of MOFA. Further, it is prayed to pay/part with the amount, to the respondent which he has earned by erecting and by allowing the erection of tower and generators over the common spaces, terraces, etc. What is important to be noted is that, that the flat which was desired to be purchased by respondent was valued at Rs.12,25,000/- Ld.counsel for the revision petitioner states that except Rs.13,000/-...

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Through General Manager, Briha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj756

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The workman in the present case was employed as a bus conductor by the BEST undertaking. For the period between 1st August 2000 and 31st August 2000, a shortage of Rs. 119.24 was noticed in the daily collections. A report in that respect was submitted by Shri Kharade, Assistant Ticket and Cash, Prateeksha Nagar Depot. On 25th September 2009, the BEST undertaking issued a charge sheet for misconduct under Standing Order 20(C) and Standing Order 20(J). Standing Order 20(C) deals with dishonesty in connection with the business of the undertaking. Standing Order 20(J) deals with gross negligence. A disciplinary inquiry was conducted. The inquiry officer after allowing an opportunity to the workman, who was defended by a Defence representative, came to the conclusion that the charge under Standing Order 22(J) was proved, but not the charge under Standing Order 22(C). The workman was dismissed from service. The departmental Appeals having failed, the workman filed an A...

Mr. R.B. Upadhyay Vs. Vodafone Essar Ltd., Peninsula Corporate Park Mu ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President Ld. counsel for the respondent states that in view of the provisions of section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, he may be allowed to withdraw the application dated 16/9/2009 below which the impugned order has been passed. He seeks liberty to agitate the issue involved in the said application by filing an appeal as against the order dated 24/3/2008 passed on application for interim relief by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum in consumer complaint no.157/2008. He further states that at this stage impugned order may be set aside. Petitioner in person has no objection for such course. In view of this we pass following order:- ORDER 1. Impugned order is set aside. 2. Application dated 16/9/2009 presented with the District Consumer Forum is allowed to be withdrawn with a liberty to file appeal under section 15 of the said Act. 3. Revision petition stands disposed of. 4. Copies of the order be furnished to the part...