Mumbai Court August 2009 Judgments

Shri Antonio Menezes Son of Late Apolinario Menezes and Vs. Shri Vitho ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj346

A.H. Joshi, J.1. The present appellants were the respondents in Regular Civil Appeal No. 16/2004 in which the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 63/1999/B, is set aside and by framing additional issues the suit was remanded through order of the remand.2. Appellate Court has framed following two issues:(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit property is not an agricultural land under the Agricultural Tenancy Act?(2) Whether the defendant proves that he is a tenant and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the same?3. During oral submissions the points which are vehemently argued can be summarized as follows:(i) Once land had ceased to have the character of agricultural land, the tenancy rights would automatically get extinguished.(ii) The land had ceased to be agricultural land before 5th Amendment to Tenancy Act came into force.(iii) Section 7A does not vest power in Mamlatdar to hold an enquiry into past character or nature of land to be agricultural land.4. For fi...

Dinu Govinda Kadam Since Deceased Through His Heirs and Legal Represen ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj45

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following Ground taken in the Grounds of Appeal:(7) The lower Appellate court failed to consider the provisions of the Prevention of fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, prior to amendment by Maharashtra Act 41 of 1977 as applicable to the land presently in dispute, because, if the decree is passed directing sale of the said land to the plaintiffs, and sale is effected, such sale would be hit by Section 31 of the said Act, and would be against the provisions of law.2. To state in brief, the appellant deceased Dinu Govinda Kadam, who was defendant in the suit, was admittedly owner of the land Gat No. 878 admeasurig 77 Ares of Village Pimpode Kh. Taluka Koregaon, District Satara. The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 32 of 1979 seeking decree of specific performance of contract contending that the defendant had agreed to sell the suit land to them for consideration of Rs. 6,500/- and had received amount of Rs. 6,00...

Abubakar HuseIn Mulani Vs. Jafar Ahmad Mulani and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj243

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. These two Appeals arise out of the common Judgment delivered in Regular Civil Appeal No. 284 of 1999 and 289 of 199 respectively arising out of the Judgment in Regular Civil Suit No. 26 of 1993.2. The following substantial questions of law arise in these two Appeals:(i) Whether the first appellate Court was per se wrong in holding that the suit land Gat Nos. 300, 303 and 309 at Village Budh were exclusive properties of the defendant Nos. 5 to 8 and in allowing the Appeal No. 284 of 199 filed by the defendant Nos. 5 to 8 and setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 26 of 1993?(ii) Whether the first appellate Court was wrong in allowing the Appeal No. 289 of 1999 filed by the original defendant No. 1 and setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court in Suit No. 26 of 1993 in respect of the suit house Nos. 139 and 47 situated at Vaduj on the ground that the judgment and finding in the earlier Appeal No. 304 of 1984 ar...

Anil Dattatraya Girme and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR457

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the land bearing survey No. 103 admeasuring 15H 71R, 104 admeasuring 3H 35R situated at Kopargaon, within the Municipal limits of Kopargaon, Municipal Council, Dist. Ahmednagar from reservation No. 32, 34, 91, 28 and 27 (Hereinafter referred as said 'Land').3. The said 'land' is owned by the petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 and one Nikhil Vilas Kulkarni. The petitioner No. 1 to 4 are the tenants of the 'said land'. There is no dispute in so far as the tenency right of the petitioner No. 1 to 4 is concerned, between the petitioners No. 1 to 4 and the owners of the land.4. The said 'land' was reserved for certain purposes, vide reservation No. 32, 34, 91, 28 and 27 in the development plan which was finalized in the year 1988.5. Since no steps for acquisition of 'said land' wee taken by the respondents herein, the p...

Dagadu Sakharam Lad Vs. the State of Maharashtra Thru Collector of Rai ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj693

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The Second Appeal challenges the judgment and order of the appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1991. That Appeal was filed by the State of Maharashtra i.e. the respondents herein against the decree passed by the trial court on 23rd January, 1991.2. The grounds on which the present Second Appeal has been admitted are as follows:(a). Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit filed by the person who is governed by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?(b). Whether the burden lies on the appellant to prove that juniors are retained in the employment in the absence of preparing seniority list and displaying the same on the notice board and or circulating amongst the employees ?3. The facts giving rise to the present Second Appeal are as follows:4. The plaintiff was employed, being a project affected person, as a 'Majdoor' with defendant No. 1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra on 16th June, 1986. He was being paid daily wages and fr...

Mr. Vilas Gopal Dongre Vs. the Dy. Registrar Co-operative Societies, K ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard appellant in person. He had sought certain queries from respondent nos.1 and 2in respect of respondent no.3 Co-opeartive Society of which he is a member. He had moved an application under Right to Information Act and had deposited Rs.10/- in terms of court fee stamp affixed on the said application. According to him, Information officer or Appellate Information officer has passed order in his favour, but Society- respondent no.3 is not complying with the said order. If this is so, the complainant has to knock the doors of Information Commissioner, but he cannot be permitted to file a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service against Deputy Registrar Co-operative societies, against District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Secretary and Chairman of the society. There is no consumer dispute involved between the parties. Appellant is simply required to approach Information Commissioner, if th...

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan S. Agarwal

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 28/9/1999 passed in consumer complaint no.267/1998, Shri Bhagwan Shamlal Agarwal V/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., by District Consumer Forum, Nasik (Forum below in short). 2. The ambassador car owned by respondent/complainant Shri Bhagwan S. Agarwal bearing registration no.MH-15-F-1587 met with an accident on 1/1/1998 at Pune and the car was damaged. The car was covered by comprehensive insurance cover offered by appellant/org. O.P., the fact which is not in dispute. Insurance claim was made but it stood repudiated on the ground that at the time of accident, car was used contrary to the terms of Insurance policy for hire and reward. Therefore, this consumer complaint was filed. It stood partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/- and feeling aggrieved thereby, appeal is preferred by original O.P./Insurance Co. 3. We heard Mr. S.R. Singh-Advocate for the appellant and Ms. See...

Mr. Deviprasad Chandrakant Ketkar Vs. M/S. Whirlpool of India Ltd.(Woi ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard appellant in person. He seeks withdrawal of appeal. Hence the following order:- Order: Appellant is allowed to withdraw the appeal. Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Mr. Meghashyam Shripad Bhangle Vs. Sub-divisional Officer Telegraphs, ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal is directed against the order/award dated 14/9/1998 passed in consumer complaint no.10/1997 Mr.Meghashyam Shripad Bhangle v/s. Sub divisional officer, Telegraphs, Sawantwadi and others. Appeal is filed by original complainant since the complaint stood dismissed. Consumer complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service in respect of not paying heed to request for transfer of the telephone and arbitrary disconnection of telephone connection. As per the statement made by the appellant himself, copy of impugned order required to be supplied as per statutory provisions by the Forum below was received by him on 27/9/1998. Therefore, appeal ought to have been filed on or before 27/10/1998. However, same is filed on 15/1/1999. Thus, it is clearly time barred and no application for condonation of delay is made. On the contrary, there is an erroneous statement made that it is filed in time. Under the circumstances, since the...

Anil Ramkrishna Inamdar Vs. the Branch Manager, the New India Assuranc ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member. This appeal is filed by Original Complainant in Complaint No.178/2008, which has been dismissed on merits by District Forum, Satara in Consumer complaint by judgment and order dated 06.10.2008. Facts to the extent appeal stated as under: The Complainant had purchased Personal Accident Policy from New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Original Opposite party. On 18.01.2007 when he was driving a Motor Cycle on road leading to Civil Hospital at Satara, met with an accident and was seriously injured. His right hand wrist was fractured and he cannot straiten his fingers. He had taken treatment from various Doctors and spent Rs.10,285/- on medical treatment. He submitted claim form with the Opposite Party. Opposite Party sanctioned amount of Rs.28,022/-. He was not satisfied with the offer made by Insurance Company Opposite Party. Hence, he sent registered notice through his Advocate to the Insurance Company and claimed amount of Rs.1,41...