Mumbai Court November 2009 Judgments

Mr. Narendra Shashikant Mawal Vs. Shri Prakash Dagadu Kale and Others

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President Heard appellant in person. Mr.V.Shastri-Advocate for the respondent. Terms of settlement arrived at between the appellant and respondent are submitted before this Commission. Those have been affirmed before the Notary public on 18/11/2009. It is reported that the counsel for the appellant is absent since his mother is ill and hospitalized. Appellant is a qualified person possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering and he states that he has signed these terms and conditions after having understood it properly. Ld.Counsel for the respondents has also signed the terms and conditions. Under these circumstances, we find that the appellant and respondents have settled the matter amicably and voluntarily. Consent terms are taken on record and marked as Exhibit X for identification. It is submitted by the appellant and respondents before this Commission that the amount of deposit of Rs.25,000/- made by the appellant be returned to the appel...

Shri Nagesh Sidramappa Upase and Others Vs. Chairman/Secretary, Simran ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal arises out of order/award dated 28/08/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.92/2008, Shri Nagesh Sidramappa Upase and Ors. V/s. Chairman/Secretary, Simran Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. by Addl. District Consumer Forum Thane (Forum below in short). This appeal is preferred by org. complainants being not satisfied with the reliefs granted in their favour by the Forum below. It is the case of the appellants/org. complainants that they are members of O.P.-registered Society. There are 24 residential tenements and 5 shops in the property of the said Society. It is further alleged that from the members of the Society, builders had demanded Rs.1,000/- in the month of June 2003 towards share of the Society and for registration of the Society. Some of the members taken initiative and on the pretext that builder is failing to register the Society, collected Rs.2,250/- from each member. By end of 31/03/2004 towards expendit...

Chairman/Secretary, Simran Co-op., Nerul (W), Navi Mumbai Vs. Shri Nag ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Challenging the order dated 28/08/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.92/2008 Shri Nagesh Sidramappa Upase and Ors. V/s. Chairman/Secretary, Simran Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. by Addl. District Consumer Forum Thane; org. O.P. preferred this appeal on 16/02/2009. When the matter was called out, none appeared for appellant. We heard Mr.Shirish Deshpande, Advocate for respondents/org. complainants. There being delay in filing appeal. Misc. Application No.306/2009 is preferred to condone the delay. It is alleged by the applicant/org. O.P.-appellant that it received a copy of the impugned order/award on 16/09/2008 and its Committee in its meeting dated 27/09/2008 decided to communicate the said order to the respective flat owners to get repaired their terrace i.e. top of the shop area. However, seeing that there is no response from the shop holders, its Managing Committee in its meeting dated 24/01/2009 decided to file appea...

Shri Shriram Vishwanath Vs. the Presiding Officer, Central Government ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj587

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 7.8.2000 passed by the C.G.I.T-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, in I.D.A Reference No. R/78/96, answering the reference in the negative, the present writ petition was filed in this Court by the petitioner- workman.2. In support of the writ petition, Mr. Rohit Deo, learned Counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions.(i) The impugned judgment and award made by the tribunal is cursory and the tribunal which is the first court has not performed its duty to go through the documents as well as evidence produced by both the sides before it and to address itself thereon and particularly in the light of the amended provision of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the scope thereof explained by the Honble Supreme Court in paragraph 32 in the case of Workman of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. v. The Management and Ors. : AIR 1973 SC 1227.(ii) The matter could either be remitted to the Labour Cou...

Dev Cyrus Colabawala Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1; 2010CriLJ758

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant as also the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.2. Applicant has been arrested in connection with the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code which is registered by Trombay Police Station vide C.R. No. 111/2009 dated 15/04/2009.3. In the present case, charge-sheet has been filed and the matter is ready for framing of charge. However, since discharge applications have been filed by some other accused, charge has not been framed so far. The matter is already transferred to the Fast Track Court and I have given directions to the Sessions Court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six months from today in Criminal Application No. 4711 of 2009.4. Brief facts are that the complainant who is a U.S. citizen had come to India for the purpose of s...

Nikhil Shamrao Parandkar and Pradeepkishor Dhondiram Dhavale Vs. the S ...

Court: Mumbai

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Petitioners in the instant case are employed with Respondent No. 4 Institution. The Respondent No. 4 Institute was an existing institute as on 15.7.1981. The Petitioners herein were also in employment on the said date. The Respondents have not denied the date when the Petitioner joined service. The age of retirement was 60 years.2. Pursuant to recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, the Government of Maharashtra in terms of the recommendations of the A.I.C.T.E. made applicable the pay scales along with some other conditions to the staff employed in technical institutions in the State of Maharashtra. One of the conditions was that the age of superannuation be reduced from 60 years to 58 years. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the G.R. of the Government to the extent that it reduces the age of superannuation.3. Petitioner relies on Section 4 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and more specifically Sec...

Mrs. Sunita Varma and Another Vs. Mont Vert Associates Through Its Par ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President 1. This is a suo motu revision petition under section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Complaint no.151/2009 was filed by Mrs.Sunita Varma and Mr.Vinodkumar Varma before the District Consumer Forum, Pune, whereby the complainant sought reliefs as stated in para 16 of the complaint. Considering the facts described herein above and documents produced herewith, the Complainant do hereby most sympathetically prays that: a) Booking of the flat No.704 admeasuring 953 sq.ft. D building in Mont Vert Seville at Village Wakad, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, kindly be declared to have been cancelled. b) An amount of Rs.6,40,644/- kindly be ordered to pay to the complainant by the opponents. c) An amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards mental harassment expenses and cost of this complaint kindly be awarded to these complainants. d) The Honble Forum kindly be passed an order of interest at 18% p.a. till the recovery of...

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd., Through Its Execut ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President Heard Mr.S.S.Jinsiwale-Advocate for Appellants. This appeal has been settled between the appellants and the respondent and the respondent has filed on record terms of settlement which are duly signed. The respondent in this matter has signed terms of settlement. Respondent is present in person. Since the parties have settled their dispute, order which has been passed by the District Consumer Forum Satara in consumer complaint no.392/2007 is hereby set aside and instead appeal is disposed of in terms of settlement marked as Exhibit X. In view of settlement, we pass following order:- Order 1. Order passed by the District Consumer Forum is set aside and instead it is substituted by terms of settlement Exhibit X. 2. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 3. Amount which was deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal be returned to the appellant. 4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. Through Its Executi ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President This appeal is directed as against the order of the District Consumer Forum Satara passed in consumer complaint no.387/2007 decided on 17/6/2008. However, appellant and respondent have settled the matter. They have produced on record terms of settlement duly signed by the parties. Respondent is not present. He has been represented by Mr.Chandrahar M.Jagdale, who is cousin brother of the respondent and the respondent has also given authority to that effect by signing affidavit in favour of Mr.Chandrahar M.Jagdale. Under these circumstances, terms of settlement are accepted and they are marked as Exhibit X. Authorized representative who represents respondent accepts terms of settlement, which has been arrived at voluntarily. In view of settlement, we pass following order:- Order 1. Order passed by the District Consumer Forum is set aside and instead it is substituted by terms of settlement Exhibit X. 2. Appeal stands disposed of ...

Shri K.F. Paul and Another Vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President 1. Heard appellant in person. This appeal is directed against the order passed in consumer complaint no.351/1995 by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum on 06/02/1997. Said complaint has been dismissed by the District Consumer Forum holding that the complainant is not a consumer. 2. The complainant wanted to purchase 200 shares of Somani Cement Co.Ltd. and therefore, he submitted an application along with Rs.2000/- to purchase the shares in the stock invest. After the said amount was deposited as per the scheme for purchase of the shares, complainant did not receive any shares from the company namely Somani Cement Co.Ltd. Therefore, he made an enquiry and it was found that his application and amount was not sent by the respondent State Bank of India to the said company and, therefore, he could not get the shares. Under these circumstances, he demanded his money back from the State Bank of India. However, State Bank of India h...