Mumbai Court April 2009 Judgments

Rev. Father Apollo, Cardioz S.J. Principal, St.Xavier’s Pre-prima ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Shri B.B. Vagyani, Honble President 1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Mankavade-Advocate h/f.Mr. Amit Borkar-Advocate for the appellants. None for respondents. 2. Respondent no.1, who was complainant before the District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur has raised a dispute with regard to deficiency in educational services. Omkar son of respondent no.1 was studying in Pre-Primary. He got through in examination. Thereafter he was promoted to next class. Respondent no.1 was therefore asked to deposit first term fee on or before 30/4/1998 in order to confirm the admission. However, respondent no.1 did not deposit the amount of fees. He did not even inform the School authorities that he would be depositing fees later on. There was no communication from him. He did not get time to deposit term fee extended. The other students were already admitted. School reopened on 8/6/1998. There was no vacancy as such in the class. Respondent no.1 asked the School authorities to admit his son Omkar in...

Dr. Nachiket Avinash Dubale and Others Vs. Idbi Bank Limited, (Erstwhi ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the complaint passed by the District Consumer Forum, Satara in Consumer Complaint No.375/2007 decided on 27/2/2008, the original complainants have filed this appeal. 2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: 3) The complainants are the legal heirs of deceased Dr.Avinash L.Dubale of Phaltan. He died on 21/4/2004. Dr.Avinash Dubale was having two saving bank accounts in IDBI Bank at Phaltan. After his death, both the saving bank accounts were standing in the name of the complainants. Dr.Avinash Dubale before his death had requested to join his son and his wife as co-depositors. According to the O.P./Bank Dr.Dubale has shown willingness to pay of the loan given to Asha Gas Agency for whom Dr.Dubale was to stand as guarantor. But, the loan papers were not made available to Dr.Dubale and therefore he had not put signature on the loan application of Asha Gas Age...

Dy. Collector and Land Acquisition Officer and Executive Engineer, Wor ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2018

A.P. Lavande, J.1. The appellants have filed the above appeal, challenging the Award dated 19.7.99 passed by the IInd Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 266/92, partly allowing the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short).2. The State of Goa issued Notification under Section 4 of the Act acquiring land for the public purpose viz. construction of a road from Cavelossim Church to Assolna ferry point. The said notification was published in the Official Gazette on 29.11.1983. Land admeasuring 290 sq. metres bearing Survey No. 59/4(part) of Village Cavelossim belonging to the respondent was part of the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award dated 24.4.1989 and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. metre. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed Rs. 100/- per sq. metre.3. In the Land Acquisition Case No. 266/92, the respondent ...

Sagar Sangeet and Conversion Scheme Chs Ltd. and ors. Vs. Minister for ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR634

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr. Pradeep Jadhav waives notice for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. C.U.Singh waives notice for Respondent No. 4. Mr. V.Y.Sanglikar waives notice for Respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 5 in person waives notice.3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent.4. This Petition in substance questions the action taken by the Authority in removing the Petitioners 2 to 9-who were the duly elected members of the Managing Committee of the Petitioner No. 1 Society; and instead, appointed administrator to look after the affairs of the Petitioner No. 1 society. The Respondent No. 2 issued show cause notice on 20th February, 2008. The said show cause notice was contested by the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 by filing written explanation. The explanation however, was rejected and the Authority proceeded to pass order in exercise of powers under Section 78 on 9th...

The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporatio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR603; 2009(111)BomLR2056; 2009(4)MhLj869

Naresh H Patil, J.1. The respondent filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices under Items 6,9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act of 1971'). The respondent contended in the application that he was in the employment of the appellant Corporation since 1-2-1985 as a Cleaner and subsequently from the year 1986 he was working as Fitter but he was paid wages of Cleaner. It was contended by him that he was neither confirmed in service nor given regular pay scale. In the contention of the respondent he worked continuously uninterruptedly. The work was available with the appellant continuously. Some of the workers who were working in the same capacity were made permanent, they were receiving salary of Rs. 2000/- per month. The respondent worked for more than six years without proper pay scale and continuity of service. It was contended that the appellant committed unfair labour pra...

icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai Vs. Shri Satis ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Additional District Consumer Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No.52/2007 decided on 11/2/2008 whereby while allowing the complaint partly, the Forum below directed O.P.No.2/Insurnace company to pay to the complainant Rs.38,840/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 16/11/2005 and also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.2,000/- towards cost, the aggrieved O.P.No.2 has filed this appeal. 2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: 3) The complainant has filed consumer complaint against Auto Bahn Enterprises Private Limited, ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited and Skoda Auto India Private Limited. There was compromise between O.P.No.1 and 3 and the complainant on 18/12/2007. Thereafter, complaint was contested by only O.P.No.2/the insurance company. 4) The case of the complainant in nutshell was that he ha...

Dr. M.S. Kamath Vs. Pal Peugeot Limited, Dist-thane and Others

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President: We heard Dr. M.S. Kamath/Authorized Representative for the appellant. The present appellant had filed consumer complaint nos. 301 and 302/1998 against the Pal Peugeot Ltd. for refund of booking amount.. On merits both the complaints were allowed by the District Forum by its order dated 07/11/1998. District Forum directed the Pal Peugeot Ltd. to refund booking amount of Rs.25,000/- to each complainants with interest @9% pa. from the date of booking till the date of cancellation and thereafter, District Forum directed the original opp.party to refund the amount with interest@18% p.a within period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. After having achieved the finality the decree holder filed execution applications before District Forum. The said execution applications were pending since long. The decree holder applied for actions under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Forum below instead of invok...

Chandra Sekhar Choudhary, Srishti Complex, Mira Road Vs. Dr.Vinay Agar ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard appellant-Mr.Chandra Sekhar Choudhary in person and Dr.Mahesh Baldwa, A.R. for the respondent/org. O.P. This appeal has been filed by org. complainant against the order passed by District Consumer Forum granting compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant for medical negligence of O.P./Doctor. Being not satisfied with the judgement/award passed by the District Consumer Forum, for enhancement of compensation, org. complainant has filed this appeal. For quashing of the said award, org. O.P.-doctor Mr.Agarwal has also filed appeal. Appeal of Dr.Agarwal being No.438/2007 has been allowed by the First Bench of this Commission on 20/01/2009 and the complaint was dismissed. Resultantly, this appeal filed by org. complainant for enhancement of compensation will have to be dismissed because his original complaint has been dismissed by allowing appeal filed by org. O.P. As such, we pass the following order:- Or...

The State of Maharashtra and the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR703; 2009(4)MhLj70

R.Y. Ganoo, J.1. The present appeal is filed so as to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Kolhapur dated 18.2.2009.2. Few facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:Respondent herein was holder of land bearing Revision Survey No. 676 admeasuring 1.21 hectares situated at Pattankodoli, District Kolhapur. Both the sides conceded that the said land (hereinafter referred to as 'Suit Land') came to be acquired in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Said Act') and that the Collector passed the award directing that the sum of Rs. 52481.30 be paid to the respondent by way of compensation. The respondent was aggrieved by the said quantum of award granted. Hence he filed reference under Section 18 of the said Act. That is against the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 10, Kolhapur. In the course of hearing of the reference, the learned Second Addl. District Jud...

Manish Purshottam Atmaramani Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)MhLj647

ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. In all these writ petitions the orders of detention detaining the detenues have been challenged and the question relating to the maintainability of these writ petitions is common. Therefore, this question is being considered and in the opinion of this Court same question of maintainability will apply to all writ petitions. The orders of detention passed against the detenus have been challenged at a predetention stage as the orders are yet to be executed. In this judgment, we will confine ourselves to the question as to whether these petitions are maintainable or not.2. In all these matters detention orders have been passed sometime back. The detention orders have not been executed and orders of detention have been challenged. The question which needs to be answered at the outset is whether this Court would be in a position to quash the order of detention prior to actual detention and if no in what circumstances. This question seems to have attracted the attention...