Mumbai Court March 2009 Judgments

Kalyan Dombivali Muncipal Corporation, Kalyan, Dist- Thane Vs. Dr. S.G ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President: The respondent was complainant before District Forum. He had two major grievances. The appellant assessed the water charges not on the basis of actual consumption. As per water meter reading actual consumption was 1,35,000 ltrs. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation/ the local authority however recovered water charges for 1,76,000 ltrs. The second grievance of the respondent was with regard to the rate of water charges. According to him, the local authority should have charged the domestic rate of Rs.270/- instead of commercial rate of Rs.810/-. The District Forum concluded that there was deficiency on the part of local authority and directed local authority to refund Rs. 9,810/-. District Forum awarded Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation. The local authority has taken exception to this order and has come up in appeal. We heard Adv.Shri H.H.Nogi for respondent. None for appellant. The local authority supplies water meters to...

Siddhartha Sudhir Date, Pune Vs. General Manager, Akai Consumer Electr ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President: We heard Adv. Shri Sant for the appellant. We perused the dismissal order. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation. Cause of action for filing complaint arose on 02/04/2003. Consumer complaint was filed on 24/04/2006. Forum cannot entertain stale claims. District Forum therefore dismissed consumer complaint. The order under passed by the Forum below is perfectly legal and correct. No interference is called. In the result, we pass following order: Order: 1. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. Misc.Application No.2119/08 delay stands rejected. 3. No order as to costs. 4. Pronounced and dictated in open court. 5. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties....

M/S. Videocon International Ltd., Aurangabad and Others Vs. Tarachand ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President: We heard Adv. Smt Bindu Jain for appellants and Shri K.T. Sawnani, Auhtorised representative for respondent/who happens to be his father. Perused the order passed by District Forum. Without obtaining prior permission of competent authority, the appellant tried to sell shares in the open market. This is deficiency in service. The appellant cannot take benefit of rejection of permission by Stock Exchange, Mumbai. The appellant should have approached Stock Exchange well in advance and should have obtained permission for listing the shares for sale. The respondent had shares of VNEL. VNEL admittedly merged in M/s. Videocon International Ltd. The respondent surrendered his shares in May-1998. The appellant was to allot the odd lot of shares of M/s. Videocon International Ltd. or to send the sale proceeds on or before 20/06/1998. The appellant could not sale the shares in the open market on account of failure to obtain the permis...

Ramkrishna Shivram Gadekar Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ767Bom

1. By these appeals, the same appellant has challenged the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated April 5, 2004 passed in two writ petitions, being writ petition No. 671/2004 and 102/2004. As the common judgment is challenged in both the appeals, both the appeals can be conveniently disposed of by, a common order.2. Facts that are relevant are that the appellant was in the service of the respondent-Port Trust as a driver. A Charge-sheet was served on the appellant alleging that he has1 committed misconduct. The misconduct related to an incident that had allegedly taken place on July 8, 1987. It was alleged that the appellant unauthorizedly took a vehicle belonging to the, employer, parked it at a place at which he was not authorised to park it and he did so to abate the commission of theft of the property of the Trust. After completion of the Departmental Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted report, holding that the charge has been proved against the appellant. The ...

Smt. Gulab Alias Sangeeta Alias Zaiubai Santosh Sinai Priolkar, Widow ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomLR1388

U.D. Salvi, J.1. The appellants - dependents as well as legal representatives of the motor accident victim, are before us on being aggrieved and dissatisfied with a judgment and award dated 18.11.2003 delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji, in Claim Petition No. 216/1995.2. Concisely, the facts leading to the claim petition are as under:(i) The deceased Santosh Priolkar proceeding from Panaji to Ponda on his scooter bearing registration No. GA-02-B-4150 was thrown off his scooter by a jeep bearing registration No. GDJ-8400 as a result of head- on collision between the two at about 6.30 p.m., on 16.06.95 near Basilica Church at Old Goa, and such collision would not have occurred but for rash and negligent driving of the jeep. The deceased Santosh Priolkar, aged about 53 years, succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident on the same day at Goa Medical College hospital at Bambolim, Goa, later on.(ii) The deceased Santosh Priolkar was working as Senior Enginee...

Abhiman S/O Baburao Gaikwad Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomLR1381

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambejogai, in Sessions case No. 44/1991 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the I.P.C. and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years on each count and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two (2) months, on each count.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that deceased Radhabai was a good looking young woman. Her marriage with the appellant was performed on March 10, 1988. The appellant was employed as a postman. He use to reside at village Yusufwadgaon. After about couple of months of the marriage, he started beating, harassing and ill-treating the wife (Radhabai) in the matrimonial home. He was addicted to vice of liquor drinking. He use to regularly return home in drunken condition and beat her. He use to express suspicion about her chara...

Smt. Pushpa T. Kadambande Vs. Naina Deepak Kamani and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1822; 2009(4)MhLj469

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit. By consent of the learned Counsel made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. With the consent of the learned Counsel and at their request, the appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. An order passed by a Learned Single Judge on a report submitted by the Court Receiver has been called into question in these proceedings. The subject matter of the dispute is a residential flat - Flat 31 - situated on the ground floor of a building called Ram Nivas situated at Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai. The suit out of which the proceedings arise has been instituted by the First Respondent in order to seek a declaration that a person by the name of Lakhan Channa Kanojia - the Seventh Defendant to the suit and the Eighth Respondent to these proceedings is a trespasser; for an order directing him to hand over possession of the flat to the Second Respondent and for certain other reliefs. The Appellant was not impleaded as a...

Mahabir Nuniwal Vs. Neptune Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Under th ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)MhLj304

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Since the issues involved in all these petitions are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners being aggrieved by the Order of appointment of Receiver on Applications filed by the respondents-society initially granted by a common order dated 10.12.2008 by the Cooperative Court, Mumbai in Disputes filed by the respondents-societies praying for damages, as well as, an interim injunction including an appointment of Receiver against the petitioners/opponents in the said Disputes.3. The Maharashtra Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai has also maintained the said order by a common order dated 07.03.2009 and thereby dismissed the Appeals filed by the petitioners.4. Admittedly, as the requisite members, i.e. 70%, were available at the relevant time and after due amalgamation of two societies i.e. K-3 and K-4 and as they decided to redevelop the entire property of both the societies for larger ...

Kabra Extrusiontechnik Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. a Gove ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1701; 2009(4)MhLj124

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner had taken a Fire and Special Perils Policy of Rs. 56.74 crores, Exhibit 'A' to the Petition. The premium of Rs. 9,57,771/ was paid and the policy became effective from 1st August 2004. The arbitration clause, namely, Clause 13, of the Policy reads as under:13. If any dispute or difference shall arises as to the quantum to be paid under this policy (liability being otherwise admitted) such difference shall independently of all other questions be referred to the decision of a sole arbitration to be appointed in writing by the parties to or if they cannot agree upon a single arbitration within 30 days of any party invoking arbitrators, the same shall be referred to a panel of three arbitrators, comprising of two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each of the parties to the dispute/difference and the third arbitrator to be appointed by such two arbitrators and arbitration shall be conducted under and in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitrati...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anand Sawant and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009ACJ216

N.A. Britto, J.1. These appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common order as they involve facts which are common and the law applicable thereto.2. These appeals are directed against the order dated 4.7.2008 of the learned M.A.C.T. (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Mapusa by which learned M.A.C.T. has directed that compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, be paid by the insurer (appellant herein) as well as the insured (respondent No. 3).3. The appellant had issued a Third Party Policy for a private vehicle bearing No. GA 01-N 9955 which was driven and owned by respondent No. 3 and which was involved in an accident on 9.4.2006 at about 15.30 hrs in which 5 occupants of the said vehicle died. The other respondents are the legal representatives of 4 out of 5 of the said occupants who filed claim petitions against the driver/owner as well as the insurer of the said vehicle including a claim under Section 140 of the Act, which as already stated, came to be de...