Mumbai Court June 2009 Judgments

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., Prabhadevi, Mumbai Vs. Kiran ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This appeal arises out of award/order dated 18/10/2006 passed in consumer complaint no.210/2006 Kiran Shivlal Kothari v/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another passed by District Consumer Forum, Solapur. 2. Complainant respondent no.1 Kiran Shivlal Kothari has preferred a mediclaim under Mediclaim policy and which stood repudiated by the appellant/ O.P.no.1-Insurance Co. on the ground of breach of utmost good faith, since ailment of diabetes was not disclosed. Forum below held that the expert opinion of Dr.Arvind Bamnikar relied upon for this purpose by the Insurance Co. could not be accepted in absence of relevant documents, which were not produced before it and holding accordingly, Forum below granted the claim. Feeling aggrieved thereby Insurance Co. preferred this appeal. 3. Heard Mr.S.R.Singh-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.U.B.Wavikar-Advocate for the respondent/org.complainant. Respondent no.2/org.O.P...

Amratlal Bhanji Laxman Vs. Kusum Prabhudas Laxman and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR645

ORDERD.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This motion is taken out by the plaintiff for appointment of Receiver of the business of 'Hotel Ajanta' carried out by the defendant No. 7 and for an order and injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 5 to 7 from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession or creating third party rights in the business of 'Hotel Ajanta'.3. The plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are close relatives, that is to say they are lineal descendants and/or their wives of late Bhanji Laxman. According to the plaintiff, the said Bhanji Laxman and his family started two businesses; one of a hotel and another of a travel agency. The business of travel agency was started by forming a private limited company which is the defendant No. 8 and the business of hotel was started by forming a private limited company which is the defendant No. 7. The entire share capital of the private limited companies, i.e. defendant Nos. 7 and 8, was held by...

Satish Son of Balkrushna Mundle Vs. Ramdas Son of Pandurang Lunge and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR119

A.H. Joshi, J. 1. This is an appeal by original respondent No. 3, who is impleaded in the Claim Petition after amendment of Claim Petition. 2. Heard learned Adv. Mrs. S.N. Deshpande for the appellant, learned Adv. Mr. Girish Chaubey with Mis. Niraja Chaubey for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, learned AGP Mr. J.B. Jaiswal for respondent No. 3 and learned Adv. Mr. A.K. Somani for respondent No. 5. 3. It is seen that the Claim Petition was allowed by learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by Judgment and Award dated 11th November, 2003 granting compensation of Rs. 2,69,000-00 and directing the investment of amount etc..4. The appellant is said to be the owner of offending vehicle, which is claimed to be insured with the original respondent No. 4. 5. The sole ground on which appeal is argued is Ground No. [c], which reads as follows:c) That according to Order 1 Rule 10 (4) of C.P.C. it is mandatory to serve the amended copy of petition with summons to the newly added parties. The appell...

Kantilal Dhanrajji Ostwal Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR123; 2009(6)MhLj570

Chavan R.C., J.1. This petition is directed against order passed by Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur on revision application Nos. 16 of 1992 and 50/1996.2. The facts, which have led the petitioner to approach this Court are as under:Respondent No. 4 Wasudeo Shyamshiv Bokilwar had taken a loan from respondent No. 3 Bank. To secure this loan he had mortgaged his field Survey No. 14/3 at village Bid-Anjangaon. Since he did not repay the loan, the Bank started recovery proceedings and after issuing several notices ultimately on 10th February, 1988 issued a notice for auctioning the field. This auction was held on 24th March, 1988 at which the petitioner purchased the field for a sum of Rs. 31,000/. Since the person whose property is sold at auction can have the auction set aside on payment of bid money with poundage fees within a stipulated period, the petitioner waited for some time and then applied by letter on 2nd January, 1990 for confirmation of sale. The def...

Reliance Energy Ltd., Electricity House, Santacruz(E), Mumbai and Anot ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 13/4/2007 passed in consumer complaint no.216/2006 Mrs.Zamirunissa D.Khan v/s. Reliance Energy Ltd. and another passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum. 2. Respondent/original complainant is a consumer of appellant O.P.no.1 M/s.Reliance Energy Ltd. She was charged excess for energy consumption for the year 2000. She was out of station during the period February 2004 to April 2004. In the month of November 2004, she let out the shop to Krishna Cleaners. Appellant/O.P.no.1 charged her Rs.74,400/- for energy consumption claiming that the meter was tampered and there was theft of electricity and then the electric supply was disconnected. Consumer complaint is therefore filed for claiming refund of excess payment towards energy consumption charges made in the year 2000 with interest @ 18% p.a. and compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for harassment and mental agony and further claiming R...

Mrc Logistics Private Limited (a Company Incorporated Under the Compan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR600; 2009(111)BomLR2703; [2009]151CompCas466(Bom); 2009(41)PTC136(Bom); [2009]93SCL101(Bom)

Swatanter Kumar, C.J. 1. Rule. By consent, Rule called out and heard finally at the admission stage.2. The petitioner MRC Logistics Private Limited was incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, by the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, who issued the Certificate of Incorporation No. 46309 MH 2006 PTC 161579 dated 3.5.2006. The Directors of this company were the partners of the registered partnership firm viz; Mumbai Road Carriers which was formed on 1st April, 1998 and was engaged in the business of logistics and mainly, transportation.3. The petitioner company made an application for registration of the trademark to the Registrar of Trade Mark, which is still pending with the competent authority.4. Respondent No. 1 the Regional Director, Western Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Mumbai, in exercise of his powers under Section 22 of the Companies Act, issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the directions as mentioned in that section shoul...

The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Okasa Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(167)LC155(Bombay); 2009(241)ELT359(Bom)

J.H. Bhatia, J. 1. To state in brief, the respondents are manufacturers of Pharmaceutical product falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They inter alia manufacture Pediatric drop for children. They filed declaration under Modvat Scheme declaring the plastic dropper supplied with the bottle containing drops as an input used in or in relation to manufacture of final product namely Novamox product (Pediatric drops). However, the department objected this on the grounds that this droppers are separately kept in the cartons sealed bottle of the Pediatric drop. These droppers are neither used in the manufacture of pediatric drop nor used in relation to the manufacture of the final product. 2. Show cause notice was issued to the Respondents and the case was adjudicated upon. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit of duty paid on plastic droppers. Appeal against the said Order of the Assistant Commissioner was also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeal) vide ...

Rajeshwar S/O Hiraman Mohurle (In Jail) Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ3816; 2009(4)MhLj483:2009(5)AIRKarR407

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (2007) (12) SCC 596, that 'rule of precedent is an important aspect of legal certainty in the rule of law', is a principle of great significance in the system of administration of justice. One of the essential rudiments of law of precedent is consistency in the judicial decision making. The doctrine of precedent has been understood in two respects. Firstly, that the phrase means merely that precedents reported, may be cited, or may be followed by the Courts. Secondly, the strict meaning of the phrase is that precedent not only have great authority but must in certain circumstances be followed. By the development of law, the doctrine of precedent in India has been given strict meaning subject to its limitations and the law stated by the co-ordinate benches of the higher Court is expected to be followed with all its rigours but certainly subject to the rule of law and satisfying t...

The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Moosa Haji Patrawala P. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(167)LC28(Bombay); 2009(243)ELT35(Bom); [2009]22STT90

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. At the request of the Commissioner of Central Excise, the appellant, this reference was made by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (In short 'CEGAT') and the following question has been referred to this Court for consideration and decision. Whether gate passes issued prior to 1.4.94 but endorsed after that date would fall under the coverage of entry No. 10 in the Table to the Notification No. 16/94CE( NT) dated 30.3.94 and would consequently become eligible documents for taking credit under the Modvat Scheme ?Admittedly prior to Notification No. 16/1994-CE(N.T.) dated 30th March, 1994 under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, credit of modvat was given. As per the position prevailing prior to 30th March, 1994 when the purchaser re-sold input to third party, he would make an endorsement on the gate passes issued by the manufacturer of the input. Procedure was changed and in stead of endorsement on the gate passes, invoice was required to ...

P. Kishanchand Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Under the Indian Companies Act, 1950 ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR121; 2009(171)LC9(Bombay); 2009(240)ELT526(Bom)

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned Counsel, the matter is taken up immediately for final hearing.2. Admittedly, on 31.7.2002, the Customs Officers raided the premises situated at Fanas Wadi, Mumbai on information that 598 Rolls of imported polyester knitted fabric, imported and cleared duty-free under Advance Licence issued under the name of M/s. Sweety International Pvt.Ltd., Surat were lying in the said premises owned by the present petitioners or one M/s. Unicorn Textiles. During the raid, the said 400 Rolls with marking `Kabul SYN' and 198 Rolls of fabric having marking `Her Ching' were found. Accordingly, panchnama was prepared. On 13.11.2002, a seizure memo and a fresh panchnama of the seized goods were prepared. The petitioners, who claimed to be the owners of the said Rolls, made a request by a letter dated 21.11.2002 to the Joint Commissioner of Customs, who had seized the said Rolls, to release the same on their giving assurance tha...