Mumbai Court June 2009 Judgments

Mr. Umesh Luthria Vs. the Senior Citizens Club Bombay, Y.M.C.A., Centr ...

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 01/07/1997 passed in consumer complaint No.113/1994 The Senior Citizens Club of Bombay V/s. The Goa Penta Hotel and Ors. by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum (Forum below in short). It is the case of respondent/complainant-The Senior Citizens Club of Bombay (hereinafter referred as Club) that on behalf of it a trip was arranged to Goa for its members. They were lodged at respondents/O.P.No.1-The Goa Penta Hotel. They did not receive services as promised and had incurred certain expenditure on their own, total amounting to Rs.1,50,100/-. A consumer complaint was filed which resulted in passing a decree against O.P.No.1/The Goa Penta Hotel, O.P.No.3/Golden Tulip Regency Travel Lodge and O.P.No.11-Mr.Umesh Luthria, who alleged to be a Managing Member of org. O.P.No.4-M/s.Hospitality Resorts Ltd. Feeling aggrieved thereby, O.P.No.11- Mr.Umesh Luthria had preferred this ap...

Mr. Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim Shaikh Vs. Amar Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Pune and Ano ...

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 08/06/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.242/2006 Mr.Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim Shaikh V/s. Amar Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and anr. by District Consumer Forum Solapur (Forum below in short). Complaint was about defective seeds and compensation is claimed. Complaint is dismissed and feeling aggrieved, org. complainant preferred this appeal. We heard Mr. Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellant/org. complainant and Mr.A.S. Dhanuka, Advocate for the respondent No.1/Amar Seeds Pvt. Ltd.. Respondent No.2/Krishi Samruddhi served but absent. Proof of service i.e. refused envelope of speed post acknowledgement due is taken on record. Perused the record. There is delay of 165 days in filing appeal. Delay being not intentional and satisfactorily explained, we are inclined to condone the delay. Delay is accordingly condoned. Undisputedly, seeds manufactured by respondent No.1/O.P.No.1 for b...

Pralhad Vilas Shinde and Another Vs. Ebrahim A. Gadkari and Others

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 order dated 11/06/2009 passed in consumer complaint No.52/2009 Pralhad Vilas Shinde and Anr. V/s. Ebrahim A. Gadkari and Ors. by District Consumer Forum, Ratnagiri. This order is passed after it was brought to the notice of Forum below that notice of production of documents given by the complainants to O.Ps. was not complied with. This fact was brought to the notice of Forum below, as submitted by the Revisionists before us and copy of notice dated 02/06/2009 is placed on record at page-72 of this Revision paper book. We heard Mr.U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the petitioners. Forum below was of the view that documents called for are the one of which certified copies could be obtained from the relevant public offices. Instead of doing that, notice of production of documents was given. The documents relates to a permission given by Town Planning Officer, Permission for conver...

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Union Co-op. Insurance Bldg., Mumb ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Mr.A.S. Vidyarthi, Advocate present for the appellant. He does not want to press appeal against respondent Nos.2and3. Hence appeal stands dismissed as against respondent No.2/ The Life Line Global Ltd. and respondent No.3/ Shri Harish Madan, Managing Director, The Life Line Global Ltd. Appeal to proceed only against respondent No.1/M/s.Krishna Enterprises. Order accordingly. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 27/06/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.54/2008 M/s.Krishna Enterprises V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by Addl. District Consumer Forum Thane (Forum below in short). Respondent No.1/org. complainant had taken Standard fire and special perils policy from appellant/org. O.P. Due to fire occurred on 03/04/2007 he had suffered a loss to the extent of Rs.3,40,100/-. Insurance claim was made, but the Insurance Company did not take any action. Feeling aggrieved thereby, consumer complaint was filed. ...

Shri Sanjay Z. Rane, Vs. Smt. Saibai S. Dubaxi (Since Deceased Through ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2668

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of on 18.9.2002 by this Court and said Judgment was challenged in Special Leave Petition by the present appellants before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hon'ble Apex Court vide its Order dated 13.10.2004 delivered in Civil Appeal No. 1416/03, remanded the matter back to this Court in view of the Judgment of Full Bench of this Court in case of Rahul Sharad Awasthi v. Ratnakar Trimbak Pandit and Ors. : 2004(5)BomCR50 . It appears that on 18.9.2002, this Court took a view that Section 4 of Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, especially in relation to Section 100A thereof was applicable retrospectively and, therefore, letters patent appeals already filed were not maintainable. This Court, at that time, granted certificate under Article 134, r/w Article 133 of the Constitution of India to the appellants in LPA No. 7/96. In view of the orders dated 13.10.2004 of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present appeal has been listed before t...

Mrs. Arlinda Dias and Mr. Socorro Dias (Mr. Roy Dias, Mrs. Fermila Dia ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2787; 2009(6)MhLj343

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Challenge in both these letters patent appeals is to common judgment delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court on 11.5.2001 in First Appeals No. 36/91 and 37/94, dismissing the same. These two first appeals, in turn, challenge common judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Margao dated 31.12.1993 in Special Civil Suits No. 263/90A and 267/90/A. Special Civil Suit No. 263/90A was filed by present respondents Co-operative Society for recovery of compensation amount of Rs. 5,10,000/-, with interest against present appellants for collapse of the supporting wall raised by them and consequential damage to two buildings raised by them. Special Civil Suit No. 267/90/A was filed by the appellants for direction to the said Society to demolish the portion of buildings which had become dilapidated and, therefore, posed problems to their structure situated adjacent and develop those buildings and for further directions to construct a retaining wal...

Shalini Vaman Godbole Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Special Un ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2759

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. All these appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 arise from the common award dated 29/4/1995 rendered by the learned Civil Judge, S.D. at Solapur in L.A.R. Nos. 64 and 65 of 1992. First Appeal No. 182 of 1996 has been filed by one of the claimants in LAR No. 65 of 1992 praying for further enhancement in the market rate as well as for building/structures and severance. Whereas the Solapur Municipal Corporation has filed First Appeal Nos. 471 of 1996 and 212 of 1997 challenging the market rate fixed at Rs. 600/per sq. mtr. by the Reference Court and similar challenge has been raised by the State Government in First Appeal Nos. 678 and 679 of 1996. Hence, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.2. Shri Daji Umbrajkar was the owner of agricultural land in Survey No. 464, which subsequently became a part of the Municipal limits of Solapur. The said land was granted by Shri Daji Umbrajkar to Shri Ganesh Mate in the year 1875, on...

P.A. Karkhanis, Indian Inhabitant Residing at Sacchidanand Cooperative ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2827; (2010)ILLJ227Bom

P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the dismissal dated 30th March, 1998 passed against him by the disciplinary authority second respondent which order has been confirmed by order dated 18th January, 1999, in appeal by the appellate authority respondent No. 3. The petitioner carried the matter before the reviewing authority, respondent No. 4. The reviewing authority respondent No. 4 rejected the review petition vide order dated 21st March, 2000, preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders in the instant petition by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as a Clerk in the respondent Bank on 20th June, 1968. The petitioner subsequently applied for the Probationary Officer's post and he was selected to the said post in the year 1974. The petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of ScaleII in 1983 and Scale III in 198...

Vijay Surendra Jayakar of Bombay Indian Inhabitant Vs. Union of India ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]318ITR382(Bom)

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed under Section 269UD(1-A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 passed by the appropriate authority for purchase of the flat of the petitioner for the Government of India.2. To state in brief, the petitioner is the owner of the flat No. 16, admeasuring 860 sq.ft. built up area, situated on the fourth floor of the building known as Mahim Jolly Cottage Co-operative Housing Society Limited at Bhagoji Kir Marg, Mahim. The petitioner agreed to sell the said flat to the respondent No. 5 for a consideration of Rs. 17,50,000/-. Accordingly, an agreement for sale was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 on 4.9.1994 through a broker J.D. Pingale. An amount of Rs. 9 lac was paid by the respondent No. 5 to the petitioner at the time of execution of agreement for sale and the balance amount was to be paid on or before 30th November, 1994. Form No. 37-I giving details of the said transaction and duly signed by the petition...

In Re: Hindalco Industries Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]151CompCas446(Bom); [2009]94SCL1(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This is a composite Petition by the Company to obtain sanction to the scheme of arrangement involving financial restructuring of Hindalco Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HIL or the Company) and its Equity Shareholders under Section 391, read with Section 100 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The Company is the flagship Company of the Aditya Birla Group and a leading manufacturer of aluminium and copper. It is stated that over the years, the Company has grown into the largest vertically integrated non-ferrous metal company in the country and among the largest primary producers of aluminium and copper in Asia. It is further stated that in 2007, the acquisition of Novelis Inc., a world leader in aluminium rolling and can recycling, marked a significant milestone in the history of aluminium industry in India. It is the case of the Company that an important element of HIL's growth strategy has been to seek out opportunities ...