Mumbai Court April 2009 Judgments

M/S. Cholamandalam Dbs Finance Co.Ltd., Chennai Vs. Ms. Vrushali Vijay ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member None present for the appellant. There is delay of 30 days in filing the appeal. Reason given is that Legal officer In-charge of consumer matters was out of station on official tour and therefore could not examine the impugned order. Reason given is apparently quite unsatisfactory. There is no reason to condone the delay. Hence we pass following order:- Order: 1. Misc.application no.308/2009 for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. Consequently appeal stands dismissed. 3. Misc.application no.309/2009 for stay stands disposed of. 4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. ...

Mr. Arun Sinha Ganpatsinha Pawar, Mumbai Vs. Manager Hdfc Bank, Andher ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard appellant in person. Ms.Sunita Sonawane-Advocate for the respondent. Both the parties filed joint pursis stating that the matter is settled out of court and accordingly appellant does not want to proceed with the appeal. Cost is not pressed by the respondent. Hence the following order:- Order: 1. Appeal stands disposed of in terms of joint pursis i.e. minutes of order recording the settlement between the parties. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Shri Abhijit Barde Vs. Shri Vijay Vithal Kuchekar, Thane and Others

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal is directed against the order/award dated 07/05/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.105/2007 Shri Vijay Vithal Kuchekar V/s. Minchin Business Management thru Prop. Shri Abhijit Barde and Ors. by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum (Forum below in short). It is the case of respondent/org. complainant Shri Vijay Vithal Kuchekar that appellant/org. O.P.No.1 represented him that he is the Agent of respondent/org. O.P.No.3/ICICI Bank Ltd. He further offered his services to procure a vehicle Tata Spacio at the cost about Rs.3,92,780/- for complainant/Shri Vijay Kuchekar and for that to obtain necessary loan from O.P.No.3/ICICI Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred as Bank for brevity). The vehicle was to be taken from O.P.No.2/Hyan Motors (hereinafter referred as Dealer for brevity). Accordingly on making down payment as well as registration and insurance charges, O.P.No.1 had taken complainant to O.P.No.2/deale...

Simao Moraes Vs. Govind Sitaram Patkar (Deceased) (Through Sakaram G. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1970

R.S. Dalvi, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem dated 19.08.2008 restituting the suit property to the respondents herein who were the defendants in the original suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 43/1981/A.2. It would be useful to consider the chronology of the litigation between the parties and the events under which the rights have been claimed by them. It has been the case of the original plaintiff (petitioner herein) that under the agreement of lease dated 01.05.1967 the shop on the ground floor of Chandraswar Prasad building in Matriz No. 10 at Curchorem was leased to the plaintiff by the defendants for two rooms and a verandah admeasuring 75 sq.mtrs. upon monthly rent of Rs. 175/-. It is his case that in 1968 he converted the western part of the verandah into a room. He used it initially to store liquor. He thereafter used it for his tailoring business and later used it for storing liquor.3. It has been the case of the defendant...

Mr. Awadesh Singh Yadav, Vs. Labour and Enforcement Officer,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2168; (2010)ILLJ238Bom; 2009(6)MhLj842

V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this petition which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging order passed by the Labour Enforcement Officer/Conciliation Officer, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa, dated 21st July, 2008 granting approval for the dismissal of the petitioners under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act and seeking a direction directing the respondent No. 2 to reinstate the petitioners with full backwages and continuity of service with effect from 30th March, 2007. Lastly, the petitioner is seeking a direction directing respondent No. 1 to admit into conciliation the demand raised by the petitioners against the respondent company dated 28th February, 2008 and further direction directing the respondent No. 3 to refer the matter for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submits, on instructions, that respondent No. 3 has decided to refer ...

Pandurang Doulu Patil Vs. Ramrao Dadu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR227

R.Y. Ganoo, J.1. Regular Civil Suit No. 530 of 1983 came to be filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vadgaon, District Kolhapur by three persons namely Ramrao D. Patil, Manjulabai and Rajaram against Pandurang for recovery of possession in respect of the property i.e. land bearing Gat No. 1125, Survey No. 188/1, 188/2 situate at village Latwade, Tahsil Hatkanagale, Dist. Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). These three persons shall hereinafter be referred to as Ramrao and Ors. for the sake of convenience. The said suit was contested by Pandurang and the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vadgaon by the judgment and decree dated 6th February, 1985 decreed the suit in favour of the three plaintiffs as mentioned aforesaid. Provisions of mesne profit were also made. Pandurang against whom the decree for possession was passed, filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1985 in the District Court at Kolhapur against original plaintiffs as well as one person ...

Vascon Engineers Limited Vs. Sansara Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR220; 2009(111)BomLR2348; 2009(4)MhLj859

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Admit. Respondent No. 1 waives service. By consent of parties, taken up for hearing forthwith.2. Mr. Devitre, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants states that other Respondents are duly served. However, for the limited purposes of this Appeal, I do not see that their presence is necessary. There would be no prejudice caused to them if the Appeal is decided in their absence as the contesting parties are before the Court.3. This Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenges an order passed by the learned District Judge, Pune dated 1st April 2009 on an Application (Exhibit 30) in Arbitration Petition No. 215 of 2009.4. Counsel appearing for parties are agreed that the effect of the order is that an ad-interim relief prayed by the First Respondent has been granted by the Court below and that is how the instant Appeal is maintainable. The Appeal questions continuation of an ex-parte and interim order made under Secti...

Methodist Episcopal Church Through Its Trustees Miss Leelabati D/O Rev ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR255; 2009(4)MhLj589

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule. Heard finally.This Writ Petition has been filed by the original plaintiffs under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:The petitioner-plaintiff instituted a suit for possession, declaration, injunction and cancellation of instruments. The plaintiffs have also filed an application for temporary injunction in the said suit. Defendants after service of notice of temporary injunction application appeared before the Court and filed their reply to the application for temporary injunction application. They sought time to file Written Statement. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that after 12.12.2007 the defendants did not seek any further time to file Written Statement. They were in fact bound to file Written Statement within 90 days. They having not done so. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the Court should have delivered the judgment under Order 8 Rule 10. Plaintiffs therefore moved an a...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Belapur, Navi Mumbai Vs. Mr. Ramkrish ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This appeal is directed against the order/award dated 31/03/2008 passed in consumer complaint no. 370/2003, Mr.Ramkrishna Vishnu Garud V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd by District Forum Pune (Forum below in short). There is delay of 216 days in filing the appeal. Therefore Misc.Application No.2185/2008 is moved on behalf of appellant to condone the delay. We heard Adv.Mr.Sanil for the appellant. Perused the record. The copy of the impugned order dated 31/03/2008 was received by the appellant on 15/04/2008. Thereafter, they sought the administrative approval to file the appeal. It is stated in the application for condonation of delay that they have noticed that original certified copy of the order was not available in the papers submitted for approval and therefore, on 11/11/2008 they have obtained the copy and then took further steps to file the appeal, which was filed on 08/12/2008. What happened at the regiona...

Tulsidas Ambadas Chavan Vs. Uddhav Tukaram Gosavi and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR741; 2009(111)BomLR2195; 2009(4)MhLj459

R.M. Savant, J.1. Rule, with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard finally.2. By the above Civil Revision Application, the Applicant takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 1/3/2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solapur by which order the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 46 of 1998 filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein came to be allowed thereby setting aside the Judgment and Order passed in Civil Misc. Application No. 10 of 1995 and also setting aside the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 194 of 1986 and restoring the said Regular Civil Suit No. 194 of 1986 to file.3. Such of the facts which are necessary to be cited are stated thus:The Applicant and the Respondent No. 9 herein had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 194 of 1986 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barshi against the original Defendant No. 1 one Tukaram Narayan Gosavi and the Respondent No. 8 herein for possession of the land bearing Gat...