Mumbai Court July 2009 Judgments

The Special Recovery and Sale Officer, Dnyandeep Co-op.Credit Society ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This appeal arises out of order/award dated 03/11/2008 passed in consumer complaint no. 211/2008 Mr.Raghunath Yashwant Kulkarni v/s. The Special Recovery and Sale Officer, Dnyandeep Co-Op.Credit Society Ltd. by District Forum, Satara (Forum below in short) The appellant/org.opposite party no.1 was appointed as Recovery Officer and as per the certificate issued under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, he took steps to recover the dues from the respondent/ Mr.Raghunath Yashwant Kulkarni by attaching the salary. The complainant challenged that action by way of consumer complaint. The same was partly allowed and feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by org.opp.party no.1. We heard Adv.Mr.Amol More for appellant. Both the respondents served, but absent. Perused the record. In the instant case the appellant/org.opp.party nno.1 was acting under the sovereign powers as a Recovery Officer and taking...

Mr. Toufique Usuf Dakhwe Vs. Mr. Iftikar Sadikali Inamdar

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Smt. S.P. Lale Honble Member: This appeal filed by appellant/org.complainant is directed against the dismissal order dated 21/10/2008 passed by District Forum, Raigad in consumer complaint no. 47/2008. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: The complainant entered into a contract with the opposite party for construction of first floor of his building for total consideration of Rs.3,30,000/-. It is alleged by the complainant that opposite party used inferior and substandard quality of construction material in constructing the first floor of his building. There was also construction defects leading to cracks in the walls and several other defects were also found which were assured to be corrected by the respondent such as grills in all windows, railing on the balcony, plumbing work was not proper etc. Complainant further stated that there are serious deficiencies in the construction. As a result, the complainant was put to inconvenience for not completing the work a...

V.i.P. Industries Limited Vs. Mr. Athar Jameel and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2954

R.C. Chavan, J.1. The petitioner V.I.P. Industries Ltd. -seeks to assail the order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, in Complaint (ULP) No. 288 of 1989, whereby the learned Member directed the petitioner to absorb services of nine complainants before him and to regularize them with all consequential benefits. 2. Facts, which are material for decision of this petition, are as under : The petitioner V.I.P. Industries Ltd. -has a factory in MIDC at Nagpur. It has a small garden in the factory premises and, therefore, engaged a gardening contractor by name Parasram Labde with effect from 1-3-1987 for a period of one year. He engaged less than 20 labourers for the gardening work. Since the contract with him was terminated before the expiry of its term, respondent No. 1 Athar Jameel was engaged as contractor with effect from 15-2-1988. The complainants were engaged by the said respondent No. 1 Athar Jameel as labourers for carrying out the work of gardening. They filed ...

M/S. Subhankaroti Developers Thru Prop. Shri Hemant Prabhakar, Kolhapu ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal is preferred against the order/award dated 09/05/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.414/2006 Shri Makrand Anand Konnur V/s. M/s.Subhankaroti Developers, proprietary firm by Proprietor-Shri Hemant Prabhakar Mirgundge by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (Forum below in short). It was a case for recovery of compensation towards inferior quality of work of the flat and on other counts including allegation that since respondent/O.P. failed to install separate energy meter for the apartment of complainant, he had to share expenditure as per the bill received and for which the charges were levied at commercial rate and thus, had to incur additional expenditure. Forum below partly allowed the complaint and awarded claim of Rs.50,000/- towards charges, which complainant required to pay at the commercial rate and also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards general compensation and Rs.1,500/- as Commissions cost and R...

Snowcem India Ltd. (Now Known as Sil Vs. Mr.Shyam Shivdasani Jointly w ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Mr.Vijay Nene, Advocate for the appellant. None present for the respondents. Mr.Nene, Advocate for the appellant wants to withdraw this appeal and files withdrawal pursis. Same is taken on record. Order: 1. Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Shri Vikas Bhika Kale Vs. Shri Asit Balwant Doshi M/S. Harekrishna Bui ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal arises out of order/award dated 31/07/2007 passed in consumer complaint No.250/2006 Shri Vikas Bhika Kale V/s. Shri Asit Balwant Doshi, M/s.Harekrishna Builders and Developers by Central Mumbai District Consumer Forum (Forum below in short). Admittedly, appellant/complainant had booked a flat with respondent/O.P. and as per the agreement dated 08/12/2000 said flat was from the slum development project. Possession was actually received on 11/10/2004 though it was initially agreed to hand over the possession on 05/11/2001. Because of delayed possession, complainant claimed compensation. Same were granted at Rs.15,000/- by forum below, but not satisfied with it, complainant himself preferred this appeal. O.P. did not prefer any appeal. We heard Appellant/complainant-Mr.Vikas Bhika Kale in person and Mr.J.B. Vashi, Advocate for the respondent/O.P. Perused the record. Letter dated 14/11/2000 issued by respondent/O.P. spel...

Snowcem India Ltd. (Now Known as Sil Business Enterprises Ltd., Nashik ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Mr. Vijay Nene, Advocate for the appellant. None present for the respondent. Mr.Nene, Advocate for the appellant wants to withdraw this appeal and files withdrawal pursis. Same is taken on record. Order: 1. Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Shri. Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Co-op Bank Ltd., Sangli Through Its ...

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 19/09/2008 passed in Consumer complaint No.152/2008 Vivekanand Virbhadra Alange and another V/s. Chairman/ Manager, Shri.Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Co-op Bank Ltd., Sangli passed by Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Solapur (Forum below in short). 2) Respondents/Org.Complainant alleged that their two deposits of Rs.25,000/- each, when matured on 22/04/2008, were not refunded back to them and, therefore, they filed the consumer complaint. The matter was proceeded ex-parte and the complaint was allowed and decreed. Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal preferred by Respondent/Org.Opponent. There is delay of 110 days for filling appeal and therefore, Misc.Application No.357/2009 its may to condone the same. 3) We heard Shri.M.Y.Tamhankar, Advocate for the Appellant and Shri.A.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent. Perused the record. 4) As far as delay is concerned, Appellant was han...

Maharashtra State Electricity Board Kalyan Urban Division, Gandhi Towe ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member None present for the appellant. Mr.Avinash Pohankar, son of respondent/Shobha Krishnarao Pohankar present in person. His mother Shobha Krishnarao Pohankar died on 15/06/2001. Written pursis along with death certificate is taken on record. Legal heirs of respondent being not brought on record, the appeal automatically stands abated. Hence, the order:- Order: 1. Appeal against respondent stands abated. 2. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Executive Engineer (U) Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Old Mill C ...

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 23/03/1999 passed in consumer complaint No.3271994 Shri Shivappa Basappa Rakate V/s. Executive Engineer (U), M.S.E.B. Solapur by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur (Forum below in short). It was a case of excess billing and the complaint was allowed. Feeling aggrieved thereby, O.P./M.S.E.B. preferred this appeal. We heard Mr.S.S. Kalekar, Advocate for the appellant/M.S.E.B. and Mr.Anand Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent/org. complainant. In the instant case, admittedly, electric meter was installed at the house of the complainant. Billing was made as per the actual consumption. When the complaint was made about excess billing, initially one meter was replaced in the month of March 1993. When the complaints continued, the meter was put on test with the standard meter and it was found that there was no fault with the energy meter. Under the circumstances,...