Mumbai Court May 2009 Judgments

Shri Somnath Kashinath Ghodse Vs. Shri Vilas Gangaram Jagtap and Anoth ...

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 Org. complainant whose complaint has been dismissed by the Forum below by its judgment dated 9/4/2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No.327/2006. 2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under. 3) The complainant had filed consumer complaint against O.P.No.1 owner of Sheti Udyog Bhandar, Saswad, Taluka-Purandar, District-Pune (Dealer) and Sardar Seeds Company/ O.P.No.2 alleging deficiency in service and for the defective seeds supplied by them. 4) The case of the complainant in short is that he had purchased seeds Pumpkin from O.P.No.1 on 8/5/2006 which was produced by Sardar Seeds Company/O.P.No.2. After purchase of seed, he had sowed the seed in Gut No.56 and Gut No.45. He had used requisite fertilizers as required. He had also sprayed insecticides too. When the fruits came, he found that some pumpkins were small in size and some were larger in size and fruits were to the extent of 30...

Shri Gaurav Uday Nagarsekar Vs. State of Goa Through Its Chief Secreta ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR117; 2009(111)BomLR2323

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this Petition, the petitioner-student is seeking relief of admission to MDS Course for the Academic Year 2009-2010 on the basis of the Revised MDS Course Regulations 2007, by either ignoring or striking down the requirement of possessing 60% marks in subject of speciality, imposed by respondent No. 1-State Government. The Petitioner is seeking admission to respondent No. 2-Goa Dental College and Hospital, which is run by the respondent No. 1-State Government.2. The contention very briefly is that as the eligibility norms are already fixed by the Dental Council of India, the norm of possessing 60% marks in subject of speciality are repugnant or destructive of those norms and hence cannot operate. In view of the grievance, later on, Dental Council of India has been added as respondent No. 3 and as in the meanwhile the process of admission was over, the five students who have secured admission against six seats for Post Graduate Course have also been added as ...

Shri Vishnu Bhicaro @ Bhikani Dessai Vs. the Deputy Collector (L.A.),

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2359

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Advocate Sardessai for the petitioner, learned Advocate General for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Kholkar for respondent No. 3. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.2. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notification dated 19.2.2008 under Section 4 and dated 10.7.2008 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 along with the report dated 20.6.08 under Section 5A thereof. It is not in dispute that he is a tenant of entire land surveyed under Survey No. 171/3(part) which is sought to be acquired by publishing notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 ('Act' for short) for construction and parking area of commercial building complex at Cuncolim Bazar in Village Cuncolim of Salcete Taluka. His grievance is that he did not receive any opportunity in an inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. When the matter was listed first before this Court on 1.9.2008, in view of the said...

Shri Armando Pereira S/o Santano Pereira and Smt. Sharayu Pereira W/o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)MhLj893

R.S. Dalvi, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith.2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 10.02.2009 dismissing the application of the defendant No. 1 and 2, in the suit claiming that the suit abated upon the death of three of the five plaintiffs. The plaintiff No. 1, 3 and 5 expired without leaving behind their respective heirs or legal representatives. The plaintiff No. 2 and 4 remained.3. The suit is filed for a declaration that plaintiff No. 1 to 5 and defendant No. 3 and 4 are coowners in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff No. 1 to 5 claim a half share in the suit property. The defendant No. 3 and 4 are stated to be having the other half share. Hence the plaintiffs together claim 50% share in the suit property. Each of the plaintiffs would therefore, have 10% share in the suit property if the plaintiffs' contention of co-ownership is upheld.4. Three of the plaintiffs expired. Hence the remaining two plaintiffs would together have half share in the suit property if the...

Duryodhan Hiraman Ingole and ors. Vs. Indian Council Agriculture Resea ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR107; (2010)ILLJ150Bom

R.C. Chavan, J.1. By this petition, six workmen of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 seek quashing and setting aside of the order passed on 8-8-1996 by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Nagpur, and maintained upon revision by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur on 21-3-1997.2. Facts, which led the petitioners to file the present proceedings, are disturbing. The petitioners were appointed in the year 1988-89 by respondent No. 2 as agricultural labourers at Nagpur. On 1-11-1990, there services were terminated orally. On 24-4-1991, they filed complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act (for short, 'MRTU & PULP Act') complaining of unfair labour practice before the learned Judge, 2nd Labour Court, Nagpur. On 7-9-1994, temporary reinstatement was granted to the petitioners. On 12-9-1995, revision filed by the employer against the order of reinstatement was dismissed. On 17-1-1996, Writ Petition No. 3133 of 1995 was disposed of by this Court dir...

Chhabubai Haribhau Badakh Vs. Shri S.H. Khatod and Sons Through Its Ge ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR311; 2009(6)MhLj760

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.The petitioners in this group of petitions have filed Regular Civil Suits against the respondents for declaration that the petitioners/planitiffs have become owner of the suit land described in the plaint, by adverse possession and for a further direction to the respondent authorities to effect entries in the record of rights. On being noticed, the respondents appeared in the respective suits and filed written statement verified by one Nandkishore Parik. The claim of the plaintiffs/petitioners was resisted by the respondent No. 1 in the said written statement.2. One of the plaintiffs in the identical suit filed an application that the written statement filed by the said Shri Parik cannot be treated as a written statement and prayed for 'No W.S. Order.Subsequently, an application came to be filed by said Shri Parik for amendment which has been filed on 22/1/2009, for incorporating an averment that the said written s...

Vijay Son of Shrawan Shende, Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Collecto ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR306

A.H. Joshi, J.1. This is a Second Appeal by unsuccessful plaintiffs, who lost in both Courts below.2. Heard learned Adv. Mr. A.V. Bhide for the appellants, learned AGP Mr. D.P. Thakre for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned Adv. Mr. S.C. Bhalerao for respondent No. 4, since notice was issued.3. After hearing parties, perusal of impugned judgments, pleadings and other record tendered for perusal, this Court finds that appeal deserves admission on certain Substantial Questions of Law.4. This Court, therefore, frames following Substantial Questions of Law:[1] Is it permissible for any Court to record a finding about encroachment in absence of fact as to encroachment and extent thereof being ascertained on the basis of authentic public record and with regard to authentic boundaries?[2] Have the parties to suit exerted to prove and disprove respective cases by legal evidence as to fact of encroachment alleged?[3] If a party to suit proves the act of encroachment, but fails to prove extent th...

Narayan Shamba Kubal Vs. Ankush Pandurang Halarnkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR142

Dalvi R.S., J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner was appointed as cabeca-de-casal (cc)/Administrator of the estate of Shamba Yesso Kubal and his wife Indira Shambha Kubal and Pandurang Yesso Kubal and his wife Savitri Pandurang Kubal. The appointment was made on 31.1.2005. A date for recording the petitioner's statement on oath under Article 1369 of the Portuguese Civil Code remained to be fixed. The petitioner also did not apply for getting the same fixed. The matter remained at that until 22.2.2007 when notice was directed to be issued to the petitioner's Advocate for the purpose of making a statement on oath by the petitioner. The matter was fixed on 11.4.2007. The notice came to be issued on 27.2.2007. Notices were issued well in time. The petitioner was to appear for making his statement on oath.3. On 11.4.2007, the petitioner as well as his Advocate remained absent. The statement on oath was not made though the petitioner was notified for that purpose. The petitioner...

Shri Arjun R. Rane Vs. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Regd. Head Off ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal arises out of order/award dated 15/11/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.438/2006 Shri Arjun R. Rane V/s. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. by South Mumbai District Consumer Forum (hereinafter referred to as Forum below in short). The appellant/org. complainant had filed consumer complaint in respect of two medi-claims rejected by the Insurance Company. One arises out of medi-claim policy No.111200/48/01/00730 and it was repudiated on 29/04/2002. Another claim arises out of medi-claim policy No.111200/48/04/00223 and it was repudiated in the year 2005. While passing award, Forum below rejected former claim on the ground of limitation and awarded second claim. Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred challenging the rejection of the first claim. We heard Mr.G.B. Pawar, Advocate for the appellant. Perused the papers. After giving anxious thought to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, ...

Shri S.D. Buddhisagar Vs. the General Manager, Telecom, Bsnl, Nashik a ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal arises out of order/award dated 24/10/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.76/2008 Shri S.D. Buddhisagar V/s. The General Manager, Telecom, B.S.N.L. Nashik and Ors. passed by District Consumer Forum Nashik (Forum below in short). The admitted facts are that the appellant/complainant Mr.S.D. Buddhisagar is an employee of B.S.N.L. and in such a capacity, service phone was provided to him. When he was transferred to other place, he made an application to surrender the service connection and requested to continue the same phone as a private phone. Said request was subsequently stood rejected. The Department also issued telephone consumption bill apparently because after the complainant left the destination on transfer the concession of phone facility to the employee at Nashik was no more available to him. Thereafter, this consumer complaint is filed challenging the said bill. Forum below by impugned order ref...