Mumbai Court June 2009 Judgments

Smt. Shashikala Vijaykumar Bohra Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of Ind ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 18/10/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.201/2008 Smt.Shashikala Vijaykumar Bohra v/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India passed by District Consumer Forum, Sangli. Admittedly husband of appellant/org.complainant Shashikala, namely, Vijaykumar Bohra had taken Life insurance policy for Rs.10,25,000/- on 28/3/2005. Thereafter he died on 08/4/2007. Primary cause of death was CRF (chronic renal failure), while secondary cause of death is mentioned as Diabetes. Thereafter, insurance claim was made under the policy. Respondent/org.O.P. repudiated the claim saying that while taking the policy, policy holder did not disclose his alignment of diabetes and thus, committed breach of utmost good faith. Not satisfied with such repudiation, the consumer complaint is filed, which stood dismissed by impugned order/award and feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal preferred by original...

Dr. Prakash Gangaram Kajrolkar Vs. Chaudhari Yatra Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Bori ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. There is delay of 16 months in filing this revision petition. Therefore misc.application for condonation of delay is filed. In fact no revision would lie for the reasons stated herein after and as such there arise no question to condone delay in filing the revision application. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order allowed passed on 27/6/2007 on application of the complainant of the even date in consumer complaint no.374/2005 Dr.Prakash Gangaram Kajrolkar v/s. Chaudhari Yatra Co.Pvt.Ltd. and another by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum. 3. Opponent nos.1and2 remained absent though served. Proof of service i.e.RPAD acknowledgement of opponent-original O.P.no.2 and under certificate of posting of both the opponents, are taken on record. 4. Heard Ms.Sunanda Barve-Advocate for the revisionist. Perused the record. 5. In the instant case, after accepting written statement subject to cost filed ...

Smt. Sushila Gopal Patil and ors. Vs. Shri Reshmasing Mehersing Khangu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR346; 2009(111)BomLR2774

S.P. Davare, J.1. In this Civil Revision Application, challenge is to the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Competent Authority, Nasik Division, Nasik Road under Bombay Rent Control Act on 17.5.2002, by which he allowed the application of the respondent/landlord under Section 13A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and directed the petitioners (tenants herein) to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed premises to the respondent/landlord. 2. The petitioners herein are original opponents (tenants) and the respondent herein is original applicant (landlord). The subject matter i.e. disputed property is two rooms on the ground floor of the building bearing Old Municipal House No. 3781 (New No. 7/174) of Bhusawal, District Jalgaon. Initially the suit property was owned by one Shri Dulichand Savalram Agrawal, who let out two rooms on the ground floor to Shri Gopal Kisan Patil (i.e. husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of pet...

Punjababa Govardhane Vidyavikas and anr. Vs. Govind Pundlik Jadhav and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj119

V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel for the respondent. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered public trust. Petitioner No. 2 is a school run by the petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is a teacher. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner is referred to as ' the management' and respondent No. 2 is referred as ' the teacher' . 3. The petitioners are challenging the judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik, dated 9th September, 2008. By the said judgment and order, the Presiding Officer was pleased to allow the appeal which was filed by the respondent No. 1 herein and was pleased to set aside the order of termination dated 5.6.2003 issued by the management and was pleased to further direct them to reinstate the respondent No. 1 on the post of Assistant Teacher with 50% back wages along with consequential benefits attached to the said post.Brief facts are as under:4. The services of respondent No. 1 were terminated by the ...

Asahi India Glass Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)25VST31(Bom)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The question for determination in this petition is, what is the date for an application for registration as dealer under Rule 7(1)(ai) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, where a company court passes an order of amalgamation?3. A few facts may be set out:The petitioner is a public company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and its head office is at New Delhi and the branch office is at Bandara (East), Mumbai. The petitioner was not having any business activity in the State of Maharashtra till March 31, 2002 and hence it was not registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as, 'the BST Act') and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the CST Act') in Maharashtra. M/s. Floatglass India Limited was another company incorporated under the Companies Act and had its office at Bandra (East) Mumbai and business activities in Maharashtra and was registered under the BST and CST Acts. ...

Shobha Mhatardev Lomte Vs. Mhatardev Tukaram Lomte

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2009Bom160

K.K. Tated, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Present Second Appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 24-08-2006 passed by the 4th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar R.C.A. No. 217/2001 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 28-03-2001 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, S.D. Ahmednagar in H.M.P. No. 140/1997.3. The appellant, the original plaintiff and the respondent, original, defend ant married on 20-11-1987 at Rahuri as per Hindu religious rites and custom. After the marriage, the appellant had been to the respondent for cohabitation and for a few days, she was treated well by the respondent. Thereafter, as the respondent is Professor, he insisted the appellant to Have further education and insisted the appellant in the year 1988 to go to Aurangabad for completing her M.A. It is the case of the appellant that as Aurangabad was inconvenient place for the appellant for completion of her M.A., she requested the respon...

M/S. Mane Super Bazar, Thru Prop. Shri Prasad Dattaram Mane, Dist. Sin ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Mr.D.H. Pawar, Advocate for the appellant. He filed a certified copy of order passed by District Consumer Forum Sindhudurg on Misc.Appl.No.23/2008 Shri Siddharth Arun Pandurkar V/s. Nokia Care Centre and others dated 25/08/2008, whereby it is recorded that the award passed in consumer complaint No.24/2007 was fully satisfied. Appellant wants to withdraw the appeal in view of settlement arrived out of the Court. Order: 1. Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Amount deposited by the appellant be returned to the appellant. 4. Misc. Appl. Nos.1294 and 1295/2008 stand disposed of as infructuous. 5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Branch Manager, Taluka Wad ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member 1. This appeal filed by original O.Ps is directed against the order dated 15/10/2008 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sangli in consumer complaint no.1115/2007 Shri Laxmibai Ramchandra Shinde v/s. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and another, whereby Forum below directed O.P. to pay Rs.1 lakh sum assured together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 28/1/2007 till realization to the complainant. Forum below further directed O.P. to pay Rs.3000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the said order, LIC of India has filed the present appeal. 2. Life assured was having Jeevan Anand policy bearing no.942697473 of the O.P. Date of proposal was 31/12/2003 and the date of commencement was 28/12/2003 and sum assured was Rs.1 lakh. Life assured was also covered for certain critical illness by paying certain amount towards Critical Illness rider. Life assured expired on 10/12/2006. Father of the life assured lodged...

Abdul Munaf Shaikh Vs. Reliance Energy Ltd., Reliance Energy Ltd., Mum ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Appellant/Applicant and his Counsel are absent. As per Misc. Appl. No.1038/2009 applicant/appellant wants to withdraw the appeal. His signature on the application and the appeal memo is verified. Order: 1. Application is allowed. 2. Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Misc. Appl.No.1128/2008 stands disposed of as infructuous. 4. No order as to costs. 5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Shri Ratan Haribhau Dangmali and Others Vs. M/S. Nirman Construction T ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S. R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Appellants and Respondent in this Appeal No.65/2009 have arrived at consent terms before the Lok Adalat held on 26/06/2009 and have compromised the matter in presence of panel members. They have executed proforma as consent terms before the members of Lok Adalat. Consent terms shall be binding on both the parties and in case of default committed by either party, other party shall be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission to execute the said consent terms as if it is a decree passed by this Commission. Order: 1. Appeal as such stands disposed of in terms of consent terms, which shall form part of the award. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....