Mumbai Court November 2009 Judgments

Bhagwat Mangal Karyalaya Vs. Shri Dattatraya V. Thanekar

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President Heard appellant in person. He has filed an application stating that since the matter has been settled out of Commission, he does not press for this appeal and states that appeal may be rejected. Application is marked as Exhibit X for identification. In view of such application being filed by the appellant, we pass following order:- Order Appeal stands disposed of as being not pressed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Crompton Greaves Ltd., a Company Registered Under the Companies Act, 1 ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4669

U.D. Salvi, J.1. A question as to the territorial jurisdiction of J.M.F.C. 'C' Court, Ponda, Dist. North Goa to try an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act arises in the present Criminal Revision Application. Facts giving rise to the aforesaid offence are as under:The respondents / accused Nos. 2 and 3 proprietors of the respondent / accused No. 1 Shubham Traders had issued three post dated cheques in the total sum of Rs. 11,46,276.86ps. in favour of the appellant/ complainant M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. having its registered office at Mumbai and its Electric Division at Ponda, Goa towards full and final settlement of their dues arising out of purchase of the electrical items. One of these cheques being cheque No. 963905 dated 2.1.2007 for Rs. 10,55,574/-drawn on Thane Janata Sahakari Bank, Khopat, Thane branch was presented within the validity period for realisation through Union Bank of India, Ponda, Goa Branch-appellant's/ complainant's banker; and drawee bank Janata Saha...

Gautam Shikshan Sanstha and the Principal, Anand Junior College Vs. Pr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR304

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. The Management of the School challenges by this writ petition the order passed by the School Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal directed reinstatement of respondent No. 2.2. The facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows:Respondent No. 2 is a holder of Diploma in Civil Engineering. The petitioner - Institution runs an institution known as 'Gautam Shikshan Sanstha at Walgaon, Distt. Amravati. The respondent No. 2 came to be appointed as an Instructor in the pay scale of 1400 - 2600 in a clear vacancy. He initially came to be appointed in the year 1992 w.e.f. 30/7/1992. He continued to work until 15/8/1995, when all of a sudden his services were orally terminated. According to respondent No. 2, he was appointed in a clear vacancy and he worked for a period of more than two years and therefore, he is deemed to be confirmed as an Instructor in the petitioner's institution. He submits that the order of termination is illegal.3. Since respondent No. 2's services w...

Zilla Parishad Through Its Chief Executive Officer Vs. the Labour Cour ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR236

Vasant A. Naik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act [Labour Court, Chandrapur] on 19.6.1998 allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 and directing the petitioner to pay the compensation of Rs. 2,25,160/-on the due amount of Rs. 22,516/-.2. The respondent No. 2 had filed an application before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1936. It was the case of the respondent No. 2 that he was working with the petitioner as a Junior Engineer and was on leave on medical ground since the month of January 1992. The respondent joined his duties on 2.5.1992. It was stated in the application that the petitioner without any reasonable cause had not paid the wages for the period from 1.1.1992 to 30.6.1992. The applicant therefore, sought a direction to the petitioner to make the payment of wages with 10 times penalty....

Bhagwandas Kanhaiyyalal Bubna Vs. Shyamsunder Wasudeo Bubna and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR218

N.K. Vasanti A., J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the respondents/original defendants from making any construction in the space between two Samadhis of their common ancestors and for removal of the construction they had already made. The respondents filed written statement and denied the claim of the petitioner. It was pleaded by the defendant that the Samadhi was admeasuring 20 ft x 50 ft and the possession of the land between the two Samadhis was not passed on to the petitioner at any point of time. Issues were framed and the matter proceeded for tendering of evidence of the plaintiff. At this juncture, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the proposed amen...

Mr. Anilkumar Vasudeo Zarkar Vs. Mr. Vinayak M. Revankar and Others

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President 1. Heard Mr.R.R.Waigankar-Advocate for the appellant. Respondents are absent though served. Therefore, we proceed ex-parte against the respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant as against the order passed in consumer complaint no.231/1995 decided by the District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur. It is to be noted that the complaint has been allowed to the effect that the respondent was directed to fix up the windows, window frames and doors in wooden. He was further directed to stop the leakages. He was directed to do the plastering work. He was also directed to level the flooring tiles. Rs.5000/- were granted by way of cost and mental agony. All these complaints were directed to be completed within a period of one month. Against this order, respondents have not filed appeal and they have accepted the order. However, original complainant is appellant before this Commission and the Ld.counsel for the appellant state...

Milan Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asian Healthcare Services Limited and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR218

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This Notice of Motion dated 30.04.2008 is taken out by the plaintiff in a pending Suit for declaration & specific performance & various interim reliefs/injunction.2. It is necessary to note the basic prayers of the Suit, covering prayers for interim reliefs also, which are as under:(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order of declaration that the Defendant No. 1 is lawfully entitled to remain in possession of the said land mentioned in paragraph 14 hereof and to develop and construct the said hospital on the said land and to use the said land for the purpose of building a super specialty hospital.(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order of Declaration that the purported letter of termination dated February 1, 2008 addressed by the Defendant No. 2 to Defendant Nos. 3 & 4 is wrongful, illegal and not binding on the Defendant No. 1 Company and its shareholders including the plaintiff.(c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order ...

Shri Somnath Gokuldas Xete Shirodkar Son of Late Gokuldas Xete Shirodk ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR180

R.M. Savant, J.1. The Petitioners herein take exception to the Order dated 01.07.2003, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 'C' Court, Margao, by which order the application filed by the Petitioners for taking their written statement on record, has been rejected.2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are stated thus:The Petitioners herein are the original Defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(g), 2 to 20, 23 and 24 in the suit filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein for declaration and cancellation of Sale Deeds dated 29.01.1983, 09.12.1994 and 09.01.1995. In so far as the Defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d), 2 to 16 are concerned, they were served with the suit summons on 02.11.2002. In so far as the Defendant Nos. 17, 18 and 25 are concerned, they were served with the suit summons on 01.11.2002 and so far as the Defendant Nos. 19, 20, 23 and 24 are concerned, they were served with the suit summons on 14.11.2002. The Defendant Nos. 1(e), 1(f) and 1(g) and Defendant Nos. 2...

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Divisional Office, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR239

N.D. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Shri Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the Appellant/the United India Insurance Company and Shri Jawale, the learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2.2. Today, the matter is fixed for hearing of application for withdrawal of amount of Rs. 90,617/which is deposited in Fixed Deposit Receipt No. EM/TBA 0702401 dated 25.07.2005 with Union Bank of India, Branch Osmanpura, Aurangabad. This application is opposed for withdrawal of entire amount by the Insurance Company mainly on the ground that, the respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants have already received Rs. 50,000/under no fault liability and Rs. 39,500/which they were permitted to withdraw when the stay application was granted while admitting the appeal and application for stay of execution. On the last date itself it was put on notice to both parties that, present appeal would be decided finally by this Court.3. I have heard submissions of Shri Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the appellant/insurance comp...

Mr. Dinesh K. Suvarna Proprietor of Maruti Motors (Now Closed) Vs. Shr ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President There is delay of 456 days in filing the appeal. But the service in the present matter is disputed. We have also noted that the service has been effected on some other person than the applicant through the courier. Affidavit of service which has been filed also does not say that upon whom the service has been effected. There is no affidavit of the courier agency to support the affidavit of the original complainant. Under these circumstances, we find that the service was not properly effected and, therefore, it is a case for condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay is condoned. With the consent of the parties matter was taken up for hearing finally, since we have noticed while considering the delay application that there was no proper service. Therefore, ex-parte disposal of the complaint by the District Consumer Forum requires to be set aside. However, we find that the complaint was pending for a pretty long period. Therefore, e...