Mumbai Court April 2009 Judgments

Shri Sitaram Vitthal Jadhav Vs. Shri Sudhir Gajanan Dhamankar

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) This is an appeal filed by the original Complainant against the judgment and award passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ratnagiri in Consumer Complaint No.89/2006 decided on 2/4/2008 whereby the Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the O.P. to pay to the Complainant Rs.57,050/- for the inadequate work carried out and also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- towards mental harassment. As such, the original Complainant had filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: 3) There was agreement between the Complainant and O.P. for construction of house. Agreement was executed on 26/12/2003 and construction was to be completed by O.P. on or before 15/3/2004. The sum payable was Rs.2,50,000/-. On 26/12/2003, the Complainant paid Rs.1,25,000/- to the O.P. and O.P. started construction of house on 15/1/2004. He did not complete construction on 14/4/2004. Hence, furth...

Sou.Sushilabai Kantu Hubale, District-solapur Vs. Icici Lombard Genera ...

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 was dismissed by the District Consumer Forum, Solapur by judgment and order passed in Consumer Complaint No.355/2007 delivered on 11/4/2008. 2) Shortly case of the parties may be stated as under: 3) Complainant is a widow whose husband Kantu S.Hubale had purchased Hero Honda motor cycle No.MH-13-AG-2349. While purchasing the vehicle, he had taken comprehensive policy from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited. The sum assured was Rs.1 Lakh. The husband of complainant was going on motor cycle on 21/6/2006 from Aurat to Solapur. From opposite direction another motor cycle came and dashed him. Hence, Kantu S.Hubale sustained severe injury on his head. He was rushed to Civil Hospital, Solapur where he expired while under treatment. The complainant Smt.Sushilabai Hubale lodged insurance claim with the O.P./insurance company. The O.P./insura...

Sangram Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanastha Maryadit, District Sangli and Oth ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This is an appeal filed by original O.P.no.1 Sangram Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanastha Maryadit and its Directors against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Forum, Sangli in consumer complaint no.233/2006 decided on 16/5/2008, whereby while allowing the complaint, Forum below directed O.P.no.1 Pat Sanstha and its Directors to refund to the complainants the amount of deposit receipts and to pay interest @ 14% p.a. from 26/6/2003. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- 2. Complainants resident of Sangli had kept in deposit certain amounts in fixed deposit receipt nos.3319,3320,3321,3322 and 3323 and on maturity those deposit receipts were payable as per Agreement. They in all deposited Rs.5 lakhs in those receipts. Those receipts got matured on 27/6/2004. Complainants demanded back the amount, but payment on maturity of FDs was not given to the complainants and therefore, consumer complaint was filed....

M/S. Bhimsen Sohanlal, N Road, Vasai Road (W) Vs. Ms.Patricia Vinekar, ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This is an appeal filed by org. O.P./builder against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Forum Thane in consumer complaint No.198/2008 decided on 20/08/2008. By allowing the said complaint, Forum below directed O.P./Builder to execute Sale Deed in favour of the complainant of the flat she had booked and for which he had accepted amount of Rs.6,34,000/- and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- and also directed the builder to pay monthly E.M.Is. of the complainant payable to the HDFC from 09/02/2008 till the date the flat is given in possession of the complainant. Aggrieved by this order, org. O.P./Builder has filed this appeal. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :- Complainant had booked flat No.A-103 on first floor, Anand Park, Vasai, District Thane on 01/04/2007 by paying Rs.51,000/- at the time of booking. She then obtained a loan from HDFC i...

Mr. Vivek Gajanan Joshi, Partner of M/S. Sayali Builders, Pune Vs. Mr. ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This appeal arises out of order/award dated 23/10/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.19/2006, Mr.Vivek Gajanan Joshi V/s. Mr.Kishor Shriram Sathe by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (Forum below in short). Consumer complainant filed by respondent/org. complainant/Shri Kishor Sathe on allegation of deficiency in service on part of builder on failure to refund earnest money, was allowed and feeling aggrieved thereby, the opposite party has preferred this appeal. The respondent/org.complainant agreed to purchase a flat bearing no.7 for total consideration of Rs.1,65,000/- from M/s. Sayali Builders, a partnership firm of which appellant/opposite party/Shri Vivek Joshi is one of the partners. The agreement dated 07/04/1988 accordingly got executed and registered. On completion of the building possession of the flat could not be delivered as perhaps due to dispute between partners of Sayali builders. One of the part...

Executive Engineer (Urban) Maharashtra State Electricity, Solapur and ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President: This appeal filed by org.opp.party in consumer complaint no. 112/2006 is directed against the order dated 12/05/2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Solapur. The District Forum cancelled the electricity bill issued for 58 months. The District Forum directed Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution company Ltd. (MSEDC) to issue fresh bill for the period of 24 months only i.e. onwards March-2003. The MSEDC has taken exception to this order and has come up in appeal. We heard Adv.Shri S.S.Kalekar for appellant and Adv.Shri Anand Kulkarni for respondent. We examined the correctness of the order in the light of material placed on record. We are constrained to observe that the District Forum did not at all take pains to consider the extract of consumers personal ledger for the period July-2001 to May-2003, July-2003 to May-2005 and July-2005 to May-2006. These extracts are important documentary peace of evidence. The ledgers are maintaine...

Sangram Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanastha Maryadit and Others Vs. Mr. Kisho ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This is an appeal filed by original O.P.no.1 Sangram Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanastha Maryadit and its Directors against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Forum, Sangli in consumer complaint no.232/2006 decided on 16/5/2008, whereby while allowing the complaint, Forum below directed O.P.no.1 Pat Sanstha and its Directors to refund to the complainants the amount of deposit receipts and to pay interest @ 14% p.a. from 02/7/2003. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- 2. Complainants resident of Sangli had kept in deposit certain amounts in fixed deposit receipt nos.3340,3341,3342,3343 and 3344 and on maturity those deposit receipts were payable as per Agreement. They in all deposited Rs.5 lakhs in those receipts. Those receipts got matured on 03/7/2004. Complainants demanded back the amount, but payment on maturity of FDs was not given to the complainants and therefore, consumer complaint was filed....

Ex. Lt. Col. Sunil Issar Vs. Presiding Officer, Court of Inquiry, Majo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR342; 2009(111)BomLR1974; 2009(4)MhLj690

Bilal Nazki, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.2. The Petitioner was serving as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army when charges were framed against him and he was tried by general Court Martial. There were six charges levelled against the Petitioner. During the Court-martial, he was held to be guilty of four of the charges being charge Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6. Thereafter he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and he was also cashiered. It appears that the Petitioner challenged the order by way of Writ Petition earlier which was withdrawn by the Petitioner on the ground that he would approach the Chief of the Army Staff. Thereafter, he approached the Chief of the Army Staff who rejected his appeal against the conviction, however, reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him. This order was passed by the Chief of the Army Staff on 2.6.2000. Thereafter, this Writ Petition came to be filed.3. The Peti...

The Nashik Merchant's Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Aditya Hotels Pvt. Lt ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2009Bom138; 2009(4)BomCR734; 2009(111)BomLR1863; 2009(4)MhLj183

V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.2. Mr. Kshirsagar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties.INTRODUCTION------------3. This petition, filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is seeking to challenge the order dated 21st February, 2008 passed by Learned Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Pune (for short 'DRT') in Securitisation Application No. 41 of 2007 together with judgment and order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short 'DRAT') dated 24th August, 2007 in Appeal No. 300 of 2007 and Miscellaneous Application No. 856 of 2007 and seeking directions against the respondent calling upon it to deposit an amount of Rs. 2 crores in DRT, Pune or with the petitioner bank as indicated in the impugned order by the DRAT.FACTUAL MATRIX--------------4. The factual matrix giving rise to the present petition is, that the petitioner is a Cooperative Bank registered under the pr...

Devendra Tukaram Katke Vs. the State of Maharashtra (Copy to Be Served ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2205

R.K. Deshpande, J.1. By the instant Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 22/4/2008, passed by the respondent No. 3 Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad dismissing Appeal No. 2007/GB/Desk-I/pol-1/CR-11 filed by petitioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 and confirming the order dated 5th April 2007 passed by the respondent No. 2 Collector/District Magistrate, Parbhani cancelling/revoking the revolver licence No. 07/05 possessed by the petitioner in respect of revolver No. A-1429/04. The facts leading to the case are as under:2. The petitioner is a Tahsildar posted at Degloor, District Nanded. It seems that on 5/3/2007, there were certain altercations between the petitioner and one Shri Rajesh Pandit the Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor on the issue of petitioner talking on his cell phone in a loud voice by using unparliamentary language in respect of said Shri Rajesh Pandit. The said Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor, vide his confidential let...