Mumbai Court July 2009 Judgments

Shri Sandip Sidramappa Patil Vs. Shri Sabu Iranna Patil

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 07/02/2009 passed in consumer complaint No.305/2008 Shri Sandip Sidramappa Patil V/s. Shri Sabu Iranna Patil by District Consumer Forum Solapur (Forum below in short). Appellant/org. complainant had oral agreement of purchase of property from respondent/org. O.P.-Shri Sabu Iranna Patil. However, Agreement for Sale or Sale Deed was not executed. Appellant/complainant demanded back Rs.11,000/- paid as earnest money as per oral agreement but in vain. Therefore, he filed this consumer complaint. O.P. appeared and denied all the allegations inter alia including the agreement itself. Forum below found that dispute is not a consumer dispute and dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by original complainant. In the instant case, referring to the definition of service under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act for brev...

Shri Shivajirao Sambhaji Satkar Patil Vs. Branch Officer State Bank of ...

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 91 days in filing the appeal. Therefore misc. application no.813/2009 is filed for condonation of delay. It is in form of affidavit. No reason given explaining the delay. No sufficient reason to condone delay and hence, the application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. However, by abundant precaution, we also heard appellant on merits. 2. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 6/1/2009 passed in consumer complaint no.416/2008 Shri Shivajirao Sambhaji Satkar Patil v/s. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Rajguru nagar, Taluka Khed, District Pune by Additional District Consumer Forum, Pune. It is a grievance of the complainant that he had taken agricultural loan to purchase a tractor from respondent/org.O.P. Loan amount was Rs.2,92,500/- and of which margin money was Rs.32,500/-. Loan was to be repaid in equated monthly installments from the salary of the appellant/complainant @ Rs.4...

Friends Social Circle Through Its Secretary/President and Mugal Nation ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR192

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties at the stage of admission.2. This writ petition is filed against the order of the School Tribunal by the petitioner Management whereby the management is directed to reinstate respondent No. 2.3. The facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows The petitioner runs a school known as Mugal National Urdu Girls School. Respondent No. 2 is H.S.C. D.Ed. and is eligible for being appointed as an assistant teacher to teach the pupils from 5 to 7th standard. Respondent No. 2 came to be appointed as an assistant teacher in the said school. He joined his duties on 30/3/1998. The petitioner was appointed in a clear vacancy for a period of two years on probation. The Education Officer had also given an approval to his appointment. Until the year 1998, there was no dispute with regard to the appointment. One Mohd.Kalim was also serving as an assistant teacher in the petitioner No. 2 school...

Sarode Jalindar Devram Vs. Saraswati Vidya Mandir and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3371; 2009(6)MhLj146

R.M. Savant, J.1. The petitioner above named is a teacher working as ' Shikshan Sevak' in the respondent No. 1 ' School which is run by the respondent No. 2 . S.G.J. Educational Trust. By the above Writ Petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction against the respondent No. 1 ' School to treat his appointment as on probation as an Assistant teacher from 22nd November, 1999, and to pay him all the benefits and perquisites of service including back wages and continuity, with effect from the said date. The petitioner also seeks a direction that the respondent No. 3 ' Education Officer be directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner in respondent No. 1 ' School as on probation with effect from 22nd November, 1999, and the last direction sought is to cancel the appointment of the petitioner as ' Shikshan Sevak' .2. Such of the facts which are necessary to be cited are stated thus:The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the pay scale of 4500-7000 on 22nd Nov...

Shri Kulbhushan JaIn Vs. the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Nashik ...

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 07/06/1999 passed in Consumer complaint No.59/1996 Shri Kulbhushan Jain V/s. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nashik (Forum below in short). 2) Appellant/Org.Complainant got the insurance cover under the policy issued by Respondent/Org.Opposite Party for carriers legal liability insurance coverage. When said insurance cover was alive, tanker carried petrol and diesel bearing Reg.No.MWN 2128 belonging to Appellant/Org.Complainant met with an accident on 13/10/1995. At that time the said tanker contained 6000 liters of petrol and 6000 liter of diesel of Bharat Petroleum Ltd. In result of which there was loss of diesel and petrol worth Rs.1,63,157/-. Insurance claim made accordingly for the same. Respondent /Org.Opposite Party i.e. insurance company repudiate the claim as per its letter dated 30/11/1995 stating that the claim is made as per t...

Shri. Prashant Sadashiv Pore, at Post - Tardgaon, Tal- Phaltan, Distri ...

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 16/05/2009 Nivrutti Bayappa Raut V/s. Prashant Sadashiv Pore, passed in consumer complaint No.103/2009 by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Satara (Forum below in short). 2) Appellant/Org.O.P.- Prashant Sadashiv Pore is a Veterinary Supervisor. His services were summoned by Respondent/Complainant-Nivrutti Bayappa Raut for his cow who delivered a calf on 08/03/2007 and since her placenta did not come out entirely. Appellant/Org.O.P- Prashant Sadashiv Pore on such call, attended the cow, examined her and removed some part of the placenta and thereafter gave a treatment inserting 4 tablets/ bolus in the uterus of the cow so that remaining placenta would come out. On 9th and 10th March, 2007 the cow remained in the same condition. Complainant summoned Org.O.P. again on 11th March, 2007 who had given some treatment but thereafter the Complainant was advised by Org.O.P. to call a...

Chandrakant Pundlikrao Randive Vs. Lalit Kantilal Thakkar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR164

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties.2. Original plaintiff has filed this Writ Petition challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Adhoc Additional District Judge whereby he set aside the decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffpetitioner.3. The facts are as follows:Petitioner-plaintiff is the owner of the two godowns at Peth Jogithana Umred. They bear house No. 24 and 25. Part of both the godowns were let out to one Kantilal Thakkar. The rent was Rs. 50/and 60/for the two godowns. The defendants are the heirs of said Kantilal who died about 10 years ago. The tenancy is monthly and begins on 1st day of each English Calender month. Both these godowns according to petitioner are very old they having been constructed more than 100 years ago. Since the time they were so constructed they were never repaired. The wooden rafters of the godowns have gone very week and have in fact broken down. The slab of the godown No. 1 has dev...

V.A. Kamat Bros. and ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Bom)290

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The assessee's appeal came to be admitted on 7th Oct., 2003 without formulating any substantial questions of law. On 22nd Jan., 2009, this Court directed the assessee to submit these questions and accordingly on 17th Feb., 2009 following two questions have been formulated:1. Whether the assessment proceedings are ab initio void being barred by the limitation prescribed under the IT Act and the said proceedings having been commenced after the limitation period are non est and ab initio void?2. Whether the provision of Section 184(5) of IT Act, 1961 could be invoked by the AO in the absence of proceeding under Section 144 being initiated by the authorities?In this background, we have heard advocate Mr. Shivan Dessai for the appellants and Mr. Rivonkar for the Department.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The challenge is to the order of the Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji, dt. 17th March, 2003 whereby the appeal filed by the assessee came to be dismissed and or...

Mr. Sant Prasad Singh Vs. Ashok Education Centre and Another

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member 1. There is delay of 30 days in filing the appeal. Therefore misc.application for condonation of delay is filed. Delay is not deliberate or intentional. We are therefore inclined to condone the delay. Misc.application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay is condoned. 2. This appeal filed by the appellant/org.complainant is directed against the dismissal order dated 20/9/2007 in consumer complaint nos.338/2006, 339/2006 passed by District Consumer Forum, Thane. Being aggrieved by the said order, complainant himself has filed the present appeal. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:- 3. Complainant is a student and has completed his M.A. degree in the year 2002. Complainant is educated from Hindi medium and lacking of any technical or professional qualification, he could not get any job. Therefore complainant decided to do B.Ed. degree course. O.P. advertised in newspapers, pamphlets and other modes that O.P. is a Government recognized Col...

Satramadas Ramdas and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj968(1)

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 13.7.1995 passed by the Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department exercising powers vested in him as Secretary (Relief and Rehabilitation) under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. By this order, the allotments made in favour of the petitioners granting excess area to them has been cancelled and the rent is resumed to the Government. 2. The petitioners are displaced persons who arrived in India after partition. They were allotted accommodation in barracks which were available in 1947. These barracks were part of the compensation pool of properties created Under Section 14 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954. The Petitioners were sold these rooms by the Managing Officer in 1965. A policy was introduced by the Central Government to allot each displaced person an area which was double the built up area in his occupation. Besid...