Mumbai Court April 2009 Judgments

Standard Chartered Bank Credit Card Department, Lower Parel (West), Mu ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member This appeal is filed by org. O.P./Standard Chartered Bank in consumer complaint No.75/2004 passed by Central Mumbai District Consumer Forum, whereby the Forum below directed the O.P. to pay Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment to the complainant. The Forum below further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards cost to the complaint. Being aggrieved by the said order, org. O.P. has filed present appeal. There is delay of 26 days in filing appeal. Therefore, application for condonation of delay is filed. Delay is not deliberate or intentional. We are therefore inclined to condone the delay. Application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay is condoned. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :- Complainant has holding VISA GOLD Card and MASTER GOLD Card of O.P./Bank. According to the complainant he has already paid Rs.2,58,805.16 against principal amount of Rs.74,497/- till October 2003 to SCB Credit Card Department. As per complain...

Jr. Telecom Officer (Phone), Kankawali and Others Vs. Mr. Dattatray La ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Justice Shri B.B. Vagyani, Honble President Heard Mr. Dattatray Datar-A.R. for the appellants present. He wants to place on record affidavit of Mr. Ulhas Dattatray Narkar, son of Mr. Dattatray Laxman Narkar respondent herein. Respondent is no more alive. He expired on 18/2/2006. Mr. Ulhas Naik makes a statement on oath that he does not want to proceed with the appeal. Legal heirs are not brought on record. Therefore appeal stands abated. Hence the following order:- Order: Appeal stands disposed of as abated. Pronounced and dictated in the open court. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Vanita Krishnarao Vaidya and Another Vs. Sau Meena Sadashiv Vaidya, Pr ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: Both these appeals stands disposed of by this common order since they involve identical facts and law. F.A.No.1556/2008 filed by the appellant/complainant/Smt.Vanita Krishnarao Vaidya pertains to deficiency in service in return of deposit amount kept by her with opposite party no.1/ Smt.Meena Sadashiv Vaidya, Proprietor, Bhagyodaya Grahak Bhandar. It is alleged that deposit receipts were issued and they were signed by either opposite party no.2/ Shri Sadashiv Gangaram Vaidya or opposite party No.3/Shri Chandrkant Vishwasnath Phadke. Smt.Vanita Vaidya filed Consumer complaint no.707/2008. F.A.No. 1557/2008 pertains to appeal preferred by appellant/complainant/ Jyoti Manvendra Birrulakar. She filed consumer complaint alleging that deposits were kept with Meena Sadashiv Vaidya, Proprietor of Bhagyodaya Grahak Bhandar, were not refunded to her and alleged deficiency in service on that count. In this case also deposit re...

Shri Narsudas Ramchandra Mehta District Raigad Vs. Shri (Dr.) Vijay Ke ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Justice Shri B.B. Vagyani, Honble President 1. Feeling dissatisfied with the dismissal order dated 25/11/1998 passed by District Consumer Forum, Raigad, original complainant in consumer complaint no.38/1994 has come up in appeal. 2. We heard Ld.Advocate Mr.S.B.Sharma for the appellant and Mr.A.V.Patwardhan-Advocate for the respondent. 3. Complainant levelled serious allegations of medical negligence against Ayurvedic doctor, who is respondent herein. Respondent has completed Ayurvedic Diploma from Ashtang Ayurvedic Mahavidyalaya, Pune. He is therefore competent to practice Ayurved. He has gained proficiency in the treatment of jaundice. 4. Prabhavati wife of present appellant fell sick in January 1993. Appellant took her to his Family doctor Dr.T.D.Mehata. He examined her and diagnosed that she was suffering from jaundice. He therefore, asked the appellant to take his wife to the respondent, who is well known in the treatment of jaundice. Respondent examined Prabhavati and at the...

Moti (Alisa Maggie) Noshir Irani and ors. Vs. Sheroo Jal Vakil,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR336; 2009(6)MhLj535

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.THE ISSUE1. The Chamber Summons before the court is filed in aid of an application for the execution of an arbitral award. The arbitral proceedings were governed by the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitral Tribunal consisted of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.H. Kania, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.N. Chandurkar and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.R. Dhanuka. Mr. Justice M.H. Kania and Mr. Justice M.N. Chandurkar made and signed their award on 18th February, 2004. Mr. Justice M.N. Chandurkar died on 28th February, 2004. The third Arbitrator signed and delivered a Dissenting award on 4th March, 2004. There was no challenge to the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act'). In execution, the defence that has been set up on behalf of the first respondent is that an award which is made and signed by two of the learned Arbitrators is not a valid award in law. That defence falls for consideration. Before dealing with the rival contentions...

Tata Capital Ltd. Vs. A.R. Industries Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR713

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. By consent, heard finally.2. Admittedly, the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short, the Arbitration Act) is pending since 13th January, 2009. This Court at the prima facie stage, refused to grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (c).3. The Arbitral Tribunal was constituted thereafter. It is reported that the Arbitral Tribunal has already heard the parties and the matter is closed for final award.4. Admittedly, no Application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, was filed before the Tribunal in view of the pendency of the Section 9 Petition in the High Court. Now, the matter is today for final disposal.5. Considering the whole averments as made and as the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that there is no serious dispute about the claim as raised by the Petitioner and there is no order to secure the amount involved in the dispute. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits t...

Kailas Bhagwan Hajare Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR698; 2009(6)MhLj490

Potdar A.V., J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard finally at the stage of admission.2. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed in terms of prayer Clause 'B' to quash and set aside the decision taken by the 4th respondent (Mayor of Dhule Municipal Corporation) on 31.1.2009 by rejecting the recommendation of the 3rd respondent in respect of the petitioner being nominated as Councillor of Dhule Municipal Corporation; in terms of prayer Clause 'C to quash and set aside the decision of nominating the 5th respondent as a nominated Councillor of respondent No. 2; in terms of prayer Clause 'D' to declare the petitioner as a valid nominated Councillor of the 2nd respondent on the basis of the recommendations of 3rd respondent on 31.1.2009 and also prayed for interim reliefs in terms of prayer Clauses 'E' to 'H'.3. The facts, which gave rise to file the present petition,...

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. India Gypsum Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(250)ELT175(Bom); (2009)25VST210(Bom)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Admit on the following question:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of case, the Tribunal was right in holding that product 'gypsum board' is covered by entry C41 in respect of gypsum in all its forms ?2. The respondent herein vide letter dated July 14, 2005, had sought clarification from the appellant about the rate of tax on gypsum board covered by invoice No. 5190356 dated April 21, 2005. According to the respondents gypsum board is a versatile building material which lends itself to application in the interior spaces of commercial and residential premises. The respondents manufacture and market gypsum-based products which are 'gypsum board and gypsum plaster'. The basic ingredients of these products are industrial gypsum or synthetic gypsum which constitutes more than 97 per cent of the final product. The respondent therefore, made an application for determination of rate of tax on gypsum board. The appellant by order dated November 14, 2005 determined ...

Life Insurance Corporation of India Chairman Lic, Mumbai Vs. Smt. Mina ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This revision petition is directed against the alleged order dated 24/12/2008, copy of which is placed on record at page 8 of this revision petition. We heard Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi-Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.M.Y.Patil-Power of Attorney holder for non applicant Smt.Minal Patil. Alleged order dated 24/12/2008 is not an order. It only summarize certain events which took place in Execution application no.53/2008 on that date. Since there is no order, there arises no question for any judicial review by way of revision. Under the circumstances, this revision itself is not tenable. We hold accordingly and pass following order:- Order: Revision petition stands dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Mrs. Shubhada Suhas Kulkarni, Panchpakhadi, Thane (W)vs. Aditya Jyot E ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Justice Shri B.B. Vagyani, Honble President This appeal filed by original complainant in consumer complaint no.253/2005 is directed against the order of dismissal dated 15/10/2007. Respondent no.1 is the Eye Hospital. Respondent no.2 is operating surgeon. O.P.nos.3and4 are also Eye Surgeon. The complainant has miserably failed to prove the serious allegations of medical negligence. The real issue is correction of residual refraction error. Methods are however different. This residual refraction error is corrected either by spectacles or contact lenses or surgery like PRK, Lasik IOL exchange, etc. It is to be noted that spectacle method of correction for residual refraction error is the best and it is convenient and has no side effects whatsoever. Whereas, the alternative methods more so where surgery is involved, the complications associated are manifold and cumbersome and hence in most of the cases line of treatment for correction of residual refraction error is the spectacle meth...