Mumbai Court April 2009 Judgments

Ms. Anita Patel and Another Vs. M/S.Rayon Infrastructure(Formerly Know ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Mr. Uttamchand, Advocate for the complainants. He prayed that he be permitted to withdraw this complaint to file this in the concerned District Consumer Forum. As such, we pass the following order:- Order: 1. Complaint be returned to the complainants for presentation in the appropriate District Consumer Forum. 2. Complainants are permitted to file the complaint within 4 weeks from today with the appropriate District Consumer Forum. 3. Complaint stands disposed of so far as this Commission is concerned. 4. Misc. Appl. No.112/2009 stands disposed of as infructuous. 5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Shri Balasaheb Shankarrao Pisal, District-satara Vs. Branch Manager, N ...

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 delivered in Consumer Complaint No.22/1998, decided on 11/10/2007 whereby, the complaint was dismissed by the District Consumer Forum, Satara, the original complainant has filed this appeal challenging the dismissal of his complaint. 2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under : 3) The complainant owned Tempo Trax for which had purchased insurance policy from the O.P./respondent. When the policy was in force, the said Tempo Trax met with an accident. Some passengers were injured and vehicle also substantially damaged. After accident, the Tempo Trax was got repaired. The complainant submitted claim form with the O.P./insurance company. After about eight months since the lodging of the claim, the insurance company repudiated the claim by sending letter. At the time of accident, some near relatives and friend of the complainant was traveling in the Tempo Trax. By pressuring...

Prithviraj Jayachand Oswal, Tah-dist-kolhapur Vs. Hem Securities Limit ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) This is an appeal filed by the original complainant whose complaint No.361/2002 has been dismissed by the judgment delivered by the District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur on 25/1/2007. 2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under : 3) The complainant/appellant had filed consumer complaint against Hem Securities Limited and Chief Executive Officer, Stock Exchange Mumbai. According to the complainant he is a Proprietor of Prashatosh Capitalise Services and he is investor. O.P.No.1 and himself were having agreement of member client. O.P.No.1 is a member of Mumbai Stock Exchange. He is broker. According to the complainant he had sold 1000 shares of F.C.L. Techno Company and 300 shares of L and T company through O.P.No.1 to O.P.No.2. However, the O.P.No.2 did not get delivery of those shares through O.P.No.1 and therefore the O.P.No.2 Bombay Stock Exchange purchased them by public auction through open market. O.P...

Shri Balkrishna Sadashiv Chandane and Others Vs. M/S. Adarsh Finance a ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President: This group of appeals is filed by so called depositors. Number of depositors had approached District Forum, Solapur for grant of appropriate relief. All the consumer complaints were filed against M/s. Adarsh Finance and Investment Corporation and its partners. It was the contention of the depositors that they had invested their hard earned money in fixed deposit. After date of maturity, they did not get refund of deposit money with interest. Therefore, they filed consumer complaints. All the consumer complaints were opposed by the opp.parties. Number of defences were raised. The main plank of defence was that the entire transactions were spurious. The affidavits made by the opp.parties were before the person, who is not competent. Moreover, the signatures on deposit receipts are forged. The applications to accept the money as deposit were found to have been signed in English. However, the deposit receipts bear thumb impressions. The Dist...

M/S. Haryax Sales Corporation, Through Prop.Shri Shrikant J. Mehta, Ka ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President: We heard Adv.Shri P.B.Sawant for the appellant and Adv.Shri Sandeep Dhangar for the respondents. Because of serious illness of cancer the present appellant could not appear before the District Forum. The Forum below decided the matter ex-parte. The org.opp.party no.2 is exonerated. The appellant has raised serious issue with regard to nature of transaction. According to appellant, it was a loan transaction and document is Bill of Exchange. The District Forum has not made any comments on so called Bill of Exchange. We are therefore inclined to condone the delay on payment of cost. Misc.Application No.2123/2008 is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to be paid to the other side within period of one month from the date of order. Taking into consideration the issue with regard to nature of transaction, we are inclined to remand the matter. In the result, we pass the following order:- Order: 1. Misc.Application No. 2123/2008 ...

National Insurance Company Ltd., Fort, Mumbai Vs. Santoshkumar Kejriwa ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order :- Per Justice Mr.B.B.Vagyani, Honble President: We heard Adv.Shri A.S.Vidyarthi for appellant and Adv.Shri Anand Kumar for the respondent. Matter pertains to the mediclaim policy. The insurance company repudiated the claim mainly on the ground that pre-existing disease was excluded. It was specifically mentioned in the policy that pre-existing disease/ blood pressure falls under exclusion clause. The patient was admitted in the hospital for Angioplasty. Adv.Shri Vidyarthi submits that there is close proximity between high blood pressure and cardiac problem of the complainant. The patient therefore approached District Forum. In spite of sufficient opportunity the insurance company did not remain present in the District Forum. No written statement was filed. The Forum below therefore allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay Rs.3 lakhs with interest @9% p.a. till date of realisation. In addition, the District Forum has awarded Rs.10,000/- by way of cost ...

The State of Maharashtra Thr. Sub-divisional Engineer Vs. Ratan Budha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR24; 2009(4)MhLj620

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Both these petitions may be disposed of by common judgment as the award passed by the Labour Court, Chandrapur in Reference IDA No. 37/1991 has been challenged by opposite parties.2. To state in brief, employee Ratan Budha Alam, made a grievance before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, under Section 10(1)(c) and Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as .Act. for the sake for brevity), alleging that he was working as Choukidar at River Gauging Station, Nandgoor, tq. Mul, dist. Chandrapur from January-1989 with Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources, Special Division No. 6, Brahmapuri, dist. Chandrapur. He was getting Rs. 50/- per month as wages. He had sincerely and continuously worked for 240 days. According to him, without giving any notice or order, his services were terminated with effect from 06.11.1990. According to him, the Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources, had not prepared any seniority list and had not followed th...

Mubarakunnis Mohammed Naseem and ors. Vs. MoinuddIn Mohd. Usman Khan a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR2

Dalvi Roshan, J.1. The original plaintiff has sued for administration of the estate of her father. She has expired. Her heirs have been brought on record. They shall be referred to as the plaintiffs. Pleadings are filed. The issues have been framed on 20.6.2007. The first issue is with regard to the bar of limitation. The plaintiff has thereafter taken out various Notices of Motion being Notice of Motion No. 3870 of 2007, Notice of Motion No. 1834 of 2008 and Notice of Motion No. 904 of 2009. The defendants Advocate contend that the issue of limitation be decided as preliminary issue. That issue is required to be decided under the provisions of Order 14, Rule 2 of the CPC as a preliminary issue.2. Issue of limitation is framed as under:Whether the claim in the suit is barred by law of Limitation.3. This is an administration suit. The plaintiff is the daughter of the deceased father whose estate the plaintiff seeks to have administered. It is the plaintiffs case that her father left onl...

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai and Others Vs. Mr. Jaikisha ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. Heard Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi-Advocate for the Insurance Co./org.O.P.no.3. Mr. Rajesh Singh Advocate for the dealer/org.O.P.nos.1and2. Mr. C.V. Golwala-Advocate for original complainant. 2. Appeal no.1004/2008 has been filed by United India Insurance Co. and Appeal no.1621/2008 has been filed by The Life Line Global Ltd. against the order dated 30/1/2008 passed by Additional District Consumer Forum, Thane. 3. This is pertaining to Mediclaim policy purchased allegedly by respondent no.1-Mr.Jaikishandas K. Narailwala. Claim under the Mediclaim policy was preferred by the original O.P. nos.1and2 and it was turned down by original O.P.no.3. On considering the papers and rival pleadings of the parties, Forum below passed impugned award directing all the O.P.nos.1 to 3 to pay Mediclaim amount to the original complainant, as such these two appeals came to be filed. We are not in detail giving facts of the case, because the ...

Shri Ambadas Dagaduji Palladwar Vs. Shri Gangadhar Damodar Burkule and ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President We heard Mr. U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the appellant/org. complainant and respondent No.1 Mr.G.D. Burkule in person. None present for respondent No.2. We make it clear at this juncture that respondent No.2 was not O.P. in consumer complaint No.123/2002. District Consumer Forum has not passed any adverse order against respondent No.2. Therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed as against respondent No.2. Learned Advocate Mr.Wavikar has made a grievance that District Consumer Forum has not granted any relief in respect of sum of Rs.16,200/- and Rs.11,000/-. According to him, appellant had paid Rs.16,200/- on 16/05/1992 and Rs.11,000/- on 05/04/1992. Original receipts are shown to us during the course of arguments. We showed these two receipts to respondent No.1. He denied his signature on both the receipts. Respondent No.1 states that these receipts are bogus. Admitted receipts are shown to us. Admitted receipts are altogether...