Mumbai Court July 2009 Judgments

Vikas Dattatraya Janjire Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4713

ORDERShrihari P. Davare, J.1. Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of learned respective counsel of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing.2. The applicant (original accused) has filed the present application requesting that F.I.R. of C.R. No. 11-28/2006 of Police Station, Ajintha be quashed and set aside.3. On 21-11-2006, the respondent No. 2 (original complainant) Prayagbai lodged F.I.R. with the Police Station, Ajintha, alleging that since last two years she is cooking Khichadi at Primary School, Sirsala under the Daridrya Reshe Khalil Mahila Magasvargiya Bachat Gat Scheme. She also contended that she was paid 38 ps. per student as remuneration and the applicant herein used to deduct l/4th amount from her bill under the pretext that the said amount was to be paid as contribution to the scheme. It is also alleged by respondent No. 2 that on 4-10-2006 her husband had been to Panchayat Samiti, Sillod and on enquiry, he learnt that no such contribution...

Smt. Kuldeep Daljeet Dhanjal Vs. M/S. City Bank Ltd., Mahatma Phule Bh ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member:F.A.No. 111/2009 We heard Adv.Shri S.D.Tigde for the appellant and Adv. Smt Kirti Patil for the respondents. Perused the record. In the instant case the appellant/original complainant claimed benefit towards personal accident cover and mediclaim under the alleged benefit made available to him since, he was a Credit Card Holder of respondent no.1/opposite party no.1. It is alleged and supported by affidavit that deceased/ Manjit himself had advised the bank to cancel the benefits of the insurance cover and claimed back the amount deducted or paid towards the premium. On his request the respondent no.1/opposite party no.1 had accordingly instructed the opposite party no.2 by their message dated 26/04/2005. Both the respondent acted accordingly at the instructions of Late Shri Manjit. As such, the opposite party no.2/insurance company claimed that they have not received the premium and the card in question is not covered...

Shri SachIn Vishnu Patil Vs. Rakesh Construction Proprietor Shankarrao ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: We heard Adv. Shri S. Koregve for the appellant. Perused the record. Consumer complaint was filed claiming relief to remove the deficiencies as mentioned in schedule a to c of the complaint about the repairs and unfinished work and alternatively claims amount of expenses estimated for carrying repairs and to remove the deficiencies. Rs.1 lac was claimed towards the compensation for mental and physical torture. Rs.50,000/- compensation was claimed for non supply of electric energy and Rs. 20,000/- was claimed as costs. These are the principle reliefs claimed. As per the impugned order/award all the reliefs to remove the deficiencies as per schedule a to c as claimed are granted. Rs.5,000/- were given as compensation towards mental torture and Rs.1,000/- were directed to be paid as cost of the proceedings. After carefully hearing the submissions made by the Ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, we find tha...

Mr. Divyesh Sindhwad Vs. M/S. New Zealand Immigration Consultants and ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This appeal arises out of order/award dated 15/10/2008 passed in consumer complaint no. 103/2008, Mr.Divyesh Sindhwad V/s. M/s. New Zealand Immigration Consultants by Additional District Forum, Thane (Forum below in short). It is the case of the appellant/complainant that the respondents/opposite parties agreed to render services to secure visa for the complainant to visit New Zealand. Accordingly, they entered into an agreement dated 06/10/2003. Under the said agreement Rs.3,50,000/- towards visa charges were to be deposited with the respondents/opposite parties by the complainant till the visa is sanctioned. The visa was not sanctioned. The amount was returned back in the year 2004 by issuing cheques. Those cheques were dishonored. The complainant sent written notice to opposite party on 17/03/2005. The consumer complaint is filed in on 18/06/2008. Therefore, holding that the consumer complaint is barred by limita...

Shri Govind Shamba Khilare Vs. Namdeo Ranganath Chandole and Others

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This appeal is preferred against the order/award dated 23/02/1999 passed in consumer complaint no.76/1996, Shri Govind Shamba Khilare V/s. Namdeo Ranganath Chandole by District Forum, Solapur (Forum below in short). Appellant and its Counsel are absent. Notices of hearing of this appeal are given to both the parties by way of abundant precaution under certificate of posting and in spite of that both the parties are absent. However, we heard Barrister Shri J.M.Bafna appointed as Amicus Curie in this matter for the appellant. Perused the record. It is the grievance of the original complainant/appellant that he was working as a bonded labour with respondents/opposite party nos. 1 and 2, who are practicing lawyers. There were Civil, Criminal and several other complaints at the instance of appellant/complainant. They were compromised before Lok Adalat. Alleging that he was forced to compromise and that he was cheated, ...

Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3585; (2009)26VST530(Bom)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Parties agree that instead of asking for a reference from the Tribunal, the court itself can dispose of the questions which have been raised, as if referred by the Tribunal.The Applicant herein had applied by way of Reference before the Sale Tax Tribunal for referring the following questions to this Court:(a) Whether on a true and proper construction of the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, read with the Approved Rehabilitation Scheme by BIFR, ht Tribunal was justified in not following the said order?(b) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in retaining the quantum of interest at 25% of the amount of the interest and penalty, though directed to be waived in entirety without any condition?(c) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not exercising its discretionary power judiciously by remitting 100% interest and penalt...

NitIn Seth and anr. Vs. Vijay Lakhani and 4 ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj416

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard finally by consent.2. As the basic consent terms concerned with the petitioners and the respondents are common, which is the foundation for filing these Contempt Petitions by the petitioners, I am disposing all these contempt petitions by this common order. For the purposes of disposing these contempt petitions, the facts of Contempt Petition No. 21/09 are taken. Most of the events are common except respective payment and the flat numbers.3. In 1994, Punit City Project, Plot No. 27, Sector No. 15, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400 703, launched by respondents 3 to 5.4. The petitioners paid the agreed amount to respondents 3 to 5 for purchase of respective Flats in Punit City Building under a registered Agreement for Sale.5. In 2002, Suit No. 36 of 2002 filed by GIC Housing Finance Limited against respondents 3 to 5 for recovery of outstanding dues in respect of mortgage of the property. The mortgage of the property by respondents 3 to 5 to GIC Housing Finance was ...

Prafulla Son of Vinodji Gudadhe Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through t ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3593; 2009(6)MhLj695

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The Writ Petition is to be decided finally at admission stage, and accordingly it appears that the same was being fixed at 2-30 p.m., by earlier Benches. It also appears that it was heard finally, but orders could not be passed.2. Controversy pertains to Office of Leader of Opposition in Nagpur Municipal Corporation, and considering the nature of controversy, this Court has on 18th September, 2008 directed parties to maintain status quo.3. It is not in dispute that present petitioner as also respondent No. 6 have been elected as Ward Members/Corporators in general elections of Nagpur Municipal Corporation held in February, 2007. In March, 2007, two political factions came together and formed a Municipal Party by name Secular Democratic Front. The Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee authorized Shri Sandeep Sahare to get the said Front registered as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986, and accordingly the sa...

Mr. Lajibhai B. Batawala Vs. the Chairman / Managing Director

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Mr. Nagraj Hoskeri, Advocate for the appellant. In the instant case, looking to the transaction in question to which reference is made in the impugned order alternate flat was made available on the terms specified and acting upon it, the complainant paid the difference of price of the flat though under protest and took possession thereof on 10/04/2008. As now submitted by Learned Counsel Mr.Hoskeri appearing for the appellant, the dispute which is now tried to be raised branding the transaction of offering alternate flat and claiming difference of price as unfair trade practice on the part of CIDCO, cannot be a consumer dispute. It is a dispute about pricing and policy of pricing and has nothing to do with aspect involving deficiency in service/unfair trade practice. Complainant himself accepted the terms, paid the difference of price (as said earlier) and took the possession of the flat. Forum below, theref...

Professor Anil Vasant Mandke Vs. Indian Institute of Technology and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3101

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order of suspension dated 18th June 1986, Exhibit-A to the Petition, the charge-sheet issued to him on the same date, copy of which is at Exhibit-B to the Petition, so also the order dated 10th March 1989 removing him from services of the Indian Institute of Technology ('I.I.T.' for short). 2. The Petitioner appears in person. Aggrieved by these orders, he has filed the present Petition contending that he has a bright academic career and background. He states that an advertisement was issued by the 1st Respondent on 13th of August 1975, inviting applications for filling up of the posts of Training and Placement Officer in I.I.T., Mumbai. He submits that a letter of appointment was issued on 20th December 1975. The Petitioner underwent a medical examination on 26th December 1975 and joined duties with effect from 16th January 1976. He was given a confirmation let...