Mumbai Court May 2009 Judgments

M/S. Rainbow Silks Vs. M/S. Ocean Bond Shipping Agencies (China) Ltd., ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Complainant-M/s.Rainbow Silks is represented by its Partner Mr.Babulal B. Jain. Advocate Mr.U.B. Wavikar is present for complainant. Complainants previous Advocate Mrs.S.S. Sonkusare has expired. Complainant does not want to prosecute this complaint. Hence, he seeks permission to withdraw this complaint. He has filed withdrawal application in that behalf. As such, we pass the following order :- Order: 1. Misc. Appl. No.873/2009 in Complaint No.400/2001 is allowed. 2. Complainant is allowed to withdraw the complaint 3. Complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn. 4. No order as to costs. 5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Dr. Shaikh Shagufta Vs. Trimurti Builder and Developers and Another

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President District Consumer Forum by order dated 12/09/2007 allowed the consumer complaint No.289/2005 filed by the present appellant and directed the builder to deliver possession of the flat to the flat purchaser and in the alternative directed the builder to refund consideration of Rs.7,57,643/- to the flat purchaser with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of receipt of the payment. District Consumer Forum granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- by way of cost of the litigation. The flat purchaser is not satisfied with the final order passed by the District Consumer Forum. She is aggrieved to great extent because of alternate relief granted by the District Consumer Forum. It is also grievance of the flat purchaser that adequate compensation is not granted by the District Consumer Forum. According to the flat purchaser, District Consumer Forum should have directed the builder to give another flat of similar size in ...

Hanif Khan Hamid Khan, Mumbai Vs. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vi ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal arises out of order/award dated 09/05/2007 passed in consumer complaint no. 165/2005, Hanif Khan Hamid Khan V/s. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. by District Forum, South Mumbai. In the instant case the insurance company repudiated the claim consequent to the theft of the vehicle on the ground that the vehicle was used contrary to the terms of insurance policy on hire and reward. The appellant/org. complainant filed consumer complaint. Upholding the contentions of the insurance company/respondent, the Forum below dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved thereby, org. complainant has preferred this appeal. We heard Adv. Shri H.H. Trivedi for appellant and Adv. Shri M.G. Barve for the respondent. Perused the papers. It is not disputed that the vehicle/Toyota Qualis was insured by the complainant with the respondent/insurance company. The said insurance was effective for the period from 14/10/2002 to 13/10/2003. The ve...

Smt. Indu Tulsiram Patil, Hiramani Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) This complaint has been filed by the Complainant Smt. Indu Patil against M/s. K.C. Developers of Andheri(East), Mumbai alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. 2) Case of the complainant is that, she is consumer of O.Ps. She had booked flat with O.Ps in its NIKUNJ project at Shri Krishna Nagar, Road No.15, Near Shantivan, Borivali(East), Mumbai. The O.P.No.1 is the Proprietor of M/s.K.C.Developers who is O.P.No.3 and O.P.No.2 is the Constituted Attorney to Shri K.C.Shah. According to the complainant, she had paid Rs.6,83,000/- to O.Ps No.1 to 3 as against total price of flat of Rs.6,60,000/- as per agreement dated 13/7/1994. The said flat was to be 440 Sq.Ft. The O.Ps agreed to give possession of flat No.504 on 5th Floor on or before 31/12/1994 as per clause no. 2 and clause no. 28 of the agreement dated 13/7/1994. However, O.Ps kept on promising her about the probable date of possession but ne...

The Employees Provident Fund Organization, Through the Authorized Repr ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member This composite appeal challenging the original order/award dated 27/02/2007 passed in consumer complaint no.157/2006, Mr.S.N.Chitnis V/s. The employees Provident Fund Organization by District Forum, (Addl.) Thane as well as order dated 26/02/2008 passed in execution proceeding bearing no. 19/2007 arising out of above referred award. Such composite appeal prima-facie is not tenable. The appeal against the original order/award dated 27/02/2007 is hopelessly time barred. No satisfactory explanation coming to condone the delay. Besides that it is the case of appellant/org. opp. party that after the said award was passed, they have fully complied with it by determining the pension as per the direction and making full payment accordingly to the complainant. The problem arose only when the complainant, who was no satisfied with the payment received and the amount of pension fixed, had filed an execution proceedings disputing the amount of pension ...

Mr. Vyankatrao Shankarrao Jadhav, Prop. of M/S. Neelkamal Developers, ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member This appeal arises out of order/award dated 23/03/2007 passed in consumer complaint No.266/2003 Sachin V. Mane V/s. V.S. Jadhav by District Consumer Forum Thane (in short Forum below). Respondent/org. complainant Sachin V. Mane had purchased a flat in a building known as Prayag Plaza constructed by appellant/org. O.P.-Mr.V.S. Jadhav for consideration of Rs.3,76,000/-. He had received possession thereof on 01/04/2002. He filed complaint about deficiency in service for not providing separate tap connection in his flat and a separate electric meter. Upholding this contention only for not providing separate tap connection, Forum below awarded compensation of Rs.1 Lakh along with cost of Rs.500/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by O.P. We heard Mr.S.V. Bhagwat, Learned Counsel for appellant appearing along with and respondent/org. complainant Sachin Mane in person. Perused the record of the appeal as well as original compla...

M/S. Chemisol Adhesives Pvt. Ltd., Fort, Mumbai and Another Vs. Shri D ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by District Forum, Thane in consumer case nos.159,160,161/2005, whereby while allowing these three complaints by common judgements the Forum below directed the org.opp.party nos. 1 and 2 to pay all complainants Rs.5,000/- as costs in each complaint and in complaint no. 159/2005 directed opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant 1 and 2 collectively Rs.48,274/- for medical expenses and Rs.15,000/- to complainant no.1 for loss of his earnings for five months and also directed opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 25,000/- each of the complainant as compensation towards mental trauma. In complaint no. 160/2005 the Forum below directed opposite party nos.1and2 to pay complainant nos.1and2 collectively Rs.2,08,838/- towards medical expenses and Rs.3,60,000/- immediately to pay to complainant no.1 towards loss of earning for ten years. It further directed org. opposite part...

Maytas Infra Limited Vs. Utility Energytech and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR143

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard for urgent ad-interim relief.2. The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Arbitration Act') and basically seeking an interim relief of injunction against the respondents to give effect and acting in any manner upon the termination letter dated 13.04.2009.3. The National Highway Authority of India awarded contract on 19.07.2007 to construct and maintain on Build, Operate and Transfer basis to Su Toll Road Private Limited (Concessionaire). The respondents have been awarded the work of engineering procurement and construction of the portion of the project Highway in question by agreement dated 31.01.2008 by Concessionaire on a fixed price lump sum turkey basis,. The respondents entered into the construction agreement on 19.02.2008 for portion/phase of the project in question.4. Admittedly, the respondents have terminated the construction contract dated 19th February, 2008. The agreement is between the Pet...

M/S. the Bharat Co-op. Bank (Mumbai) Ltd., Goregaon (E), Mumbai Vs. M/ ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President Complainant is a Banking Company registered under Co-op. Societies Act. O.Ps. are the Computer Software and Hardware dealers and suppliers. The complainant as part of modernization of banking institution decided to computerise their two branches being at Bhandup Village Road and Mira Road. O.Ps. submitted detailed literature on all products with budget outlay. After discussions, the complainant by their letters dated 18/11/1996 and 11/12/1996 confirmed the orders of computerisation of their Bhandup Village Road and Mira Road branches respectively. The complainant made initial payment of Rs.5,86,580/- and Rs.5,68,250/- (Total of Rs.11,54,830/-) to O.P.No.1. O.P.No.1 acknowledged the payment. O.P.No.1 supplied computer Hardware and Software. O.P.No.1 installed the Software at respective branches of the complainant. O.P.No.1 had given warranty of one year and had promised to give 10 days training to five persons. The complainant made grievanc...

National Insurance Company Limited, Office at Kolhapur, Mumbai Vs. Shr ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur in Consumer Complaint No.203/2007 decided on 14/3/2008 whereby while allowing the complaint the Forum below directed the appellant/insurance company to pay sum of Rs.48,540/- to the complainant from 9/4/2007 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and to pay cost of Rs.5,000/-, the Org.O.P./National Insurance Company Limited has filed this appeal challenging the said award. In fact, this complaint along with Consumer Complaint No.204/2007 and Consumer Complaint No.205/2007 was decided by the Forum by delivering common judgment and award but since appeals are individually filed we propose to decide each appeal independently on merit. 2) The complainant and his brother Shri Deepak Konduskar, purchased 16 buses each for business and all those buses were insured with the National Insurance Company Limited, Kolhapur. Bus No.MH-09-L-5247 wa...