Mumbai Court April 2009 Judgments

Shri Vimalkumar Ravji Shah Vs. the Employees Provident Fund Organisati ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR681; (2009)IVLLJ795Bom

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The petitioner is challenging order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner dated 6th January, 2003 directing respondent No. 2-Bank to pay the amount lying in the petitioner's account as the petitioner in arrears of an amount of Rs. 60,08,210/- which is an amount due and payable as arrears of account of Provident Fund Dues/interest/cost. It is further stated therein that pursuant to the said order, Saving Bank Account No. 3739 was frozen. Brief facts are as under:2. The petitioner was the Managing Director of Chetan Foundries Ltd., a public limited company situated at Solapur. The said company was not functioning since May 2001. The petitioner and the Directors approached the BIFR under the Sick Industries Company Act, 1985 and thereafter, the said company has been taken over by respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 had taken symbolic possession of the assets of the company and various attempts were made by the said respondent No. 5 for sale of the assets of ...

Sailash Amulakh Jogani of Gujarat, Indian Inhabitant and Pankaj K. Jog ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(241)ELT348(Bom)

Ranjana Desai, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of Order dated 3/12/1992 passed by respondent 5 i.e. the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay (for short, 'the Collector of Customs') being Order No. 48/92 and Order dated 29/12/1995 passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the CEGAT') in appeals arising therefrom.2. It is necessary to begin with the facts. Petitioner 1 claims to be a broker and dealer in diamonds. He is also a partner of M/s. Sudit Gems, a firm carrying on business at Navsari. Petitioner 2 is also a broker and a dealer in diamonds.3. Pursuant to specific information, the officers of M & P Wing of Customs visited, on 21/3/1991, the business premises of M/s. M. Ambalal & Co. at S.V. Road, Bombay, and apprehended one Rajendra @ Raju, who was standing outside the premises with a cloth bag in his hand, which, on subsequent examination was found ...

Mr. Prakash Varma Vs. Dr. Ing.H.C.F.Porsche Ag, Porscheplatz and Other ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr. Amar Mishra-Advocate for the complainant. Mr. S.A. Gundecha-Advocate for the O.Ps. We heard both the counsels extensively on the point of admission only. We are finding that the customized car was booked by the complainant with O.P.nos.1, 2 and 3 and since as per terms and conditions of the said contract, the complainant had not made remaining amount of price, Car was not delivered and ultimately, complainant himself terminated the contract and he has simply filed this consumer complaint to get refund of Rs.66 lakhs paid earlier. There is no deficiency in service. He has terminated the contract and he has to recover Rs.66 lakhs from the O.Ps. For this purpose he cannot file consumer complaint. He has to approach Civil Court for getting decree passed against O.Ps. Hence we pass following order:- Order: 1. Complaint is rejected at the stage of admission itself. 2. Pronounced and dictated in the open court....

Canara Bank Bhandup, Mumbai Vs. Smt. Kamala Leelabai

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Shri B.B.Vagyani, Honble President Heard Mr.Sharad Bhatkar-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.A.J.Chougule-Advocate as Amicus Curie for the respondent. Respondent is also present in person before us. There is delay of 92 days in filing the appeal. Delay is not deliberate or intentional. We are therefore inclined to condone the delay. Misc. application no.531/2007 is allowed. Delay is condoned. We carefully perused the judgement under challenge in the light of material placed on record. We are constrained to observe that the District Consumer Forum did not consider the documents filed on behalf of the appellant. District Consumer Forum also failed to consider facts disclosed in the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant. Without application of mind, District Consumer Forum has observed that the bank did not place on record best possible evidence in its possession. On the contrary, best possible evidence was placed on record by the bank. Bank disclosed all ne...

Archana Kiran Khandelwal and Others Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Shri B.B. Vagyani, Honble President 1. Heard Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi-Advocate for the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). Mr. M.H. Oak-Advocate for the original complainants. Mr. S.S. Jinsiwale-Advocate for Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ( M.S.E.D.Co.). 2. These two appeals arise out of judgement dated 15/7/2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum Satara. District Consumer Forum Satara directed Insurance Co. to pay Rs.12,969/- to the complainants. District Consumer Forum directed employer to pay a sum of Rs.1,37,031/- to the complainants. We propose to dispose of these two appeals by common order. District Consumer Forum did not at all consider the well settled legal position. We propose to refer decision of 1. Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking V/s. Basanti Devi AIR 2000 Supreme Court 43 = 1999 AIR SCW 416. 2. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India v/s. Rajiv Kumar Bhaskar (2005)6 SCC 188. 3. The de...

Yogesh Desai Vs. Purshotam C. Patel

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Being aggrieved by dismissal of the complaint passed by District Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint no. 383/2004 decided on 21/08/2008 the original complainant has filed this appeal challenging the dismissal of the award. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: Complainant claimed Rs.21,08,080/- and refund of Rs.90,000/- with interest @18% p.a. and Rs.5 lakhs for mental torture besides cost of the proceedings. According to the complainant he took one BHK flat at Damodar Park, Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai in 1984. He paid Rs.95,000/-. He paid Rs.45,000/- by cheque and Rs. 50,000/- in cash. The cheque was issued towards booking amount of the flat in the name of opposite party/M/s.Bipin Construction. Possession of the flat was to be given within two years from the date of first payment. The complainant requested opposite party no.1 to execute the Agreement for Sale, but opposite party did not execute the agreement de...

Mr.Tushar Kshirsagar Vs. Mr. Anil Anandrao Dumre and Another

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr.Ajay Varma-Advocate for the appellant. By filing this misc.application appellant has informed that he has settled the matter with Mr. Anil Anandrao Dumre and Sau.Manisha Anil Dumre-original complainants. Consent terms are taken on record. As per consent terms, the parties have settled the dispute for which demand draft of Rs.45,000/- is given by the appellant to respondent no.1. Judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Forum in consumer case no.103/2004 is hereby stands quashed and set aside in terms of these consent terms as against present appellant/original O.P. no.2 only. Hence the following order:- Order 1. Appeal @ Misc.applications stands disposed of in terms of consent terms. 2. Pronounced and dictated in the open court. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Vs. the New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Shri B.B. Vagyani, Honble President Heard Mr.Sanjay Gade-Advocate for the appellant. Mr.A.S.Vidyarthi-Advocate for the respondent. We examined the correctness of the order. Appellant has not placed on record the documents to show that the damage was caused to the vehicle on account of flood. Insurance Co. appointed surveyor and surveyor examined the vehicle and submitted the report. It is stated in the survey report that due to mechanical defect the damage was caused to the vehicle and not by flood. Forum below therefore dismissed the complaint. Dismissal order does not suffer from any illegality. No interference is called for. In the result, we pass following order:- Order: Appeal stands summarily dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Khodiyar Developers Through Its Partner Mr. Kamal Jadhwani Vs. Vinay B ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2227

R.S. Dalvi, J.1. Admit. By consent heard forthwith.2. The order which is impugned in this appeal is dated 06.11.2007 granting a temporary injunction against the respondent No. 4 and 5 from executing any sale deed in favour of the appellants creating third party right in respect of the suit property and carrying on any construction or development thereon. The respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 were the original plaintiffs, the respondent No. 4 and 5 were the original defendant No. 1 and 2 who are the vendors. The appellant herein was the defendant No. 3.3. The plaintiffs claim to have entered into an agreement on 04.02.2006 with the defendant No. 1 and 2. The agreement is titled 'Points of discussion.' There are several points of discussion and typed on two sheets of paper, initialled by five parties on page 1 and signed by each of them on page 2. The agreement between the parties is in respect of the suit property. The agreement spells out the description of the suit property sought to be sold ...

Dr. Jitendrasinh Mohansinh Parmar Since Deceased Through His Lrs. (Sha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR326; 2009(4)MhLj518

R.Y. Ganoo, J.1. The present appeal concerns land bearing plot No. 354 situate at city Silvassa within the territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The original appellant Dr. Jitendrasinh instituted the suit for specific performance in regard to land admeasuring 4 Are out of plot No. 354 in the Court of Civil Judge, Dadra Nagar Haveli, Silvassa being Special Civil Suit No. 1 of 1986. The learned Civil Judge, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned trial Judge') decided the suit and by judgment and decree dated 27th February, 1990 declined to grant specific performance in regard to the suit land i.e. 4 Are. The learned trial Judge directed the present respondents to pay to the original appellant Rs. 16,000/- being the amount paid by the original appellant. The said amount of Rs. 16,000/- was paid as and by way of consideration to the respondents. Interest was also granted in terms of item No. 3 of judgment dated 27th February, 1990. This judgment dated 27th...