Mumbai Court August 2009 Judgments

Suhas Vishnupanth Bandewar Vs. Ashok Ramchandra Pawar

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mrs. S.P. Lale, Honble Member 1) This appeal filed by the Appellant/Org. Complainant against the dismissal order dated 07/11/2008 in consumer complaint No.251/2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Solapur (Forum below in short). Being aggrieved by the said order the Org. Complainant has filed this appeal. 2) The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under - The present complaint was filed by the Org. Complainant before the Forum below for refund of admission fees paid to medical course in the name of his daughter Aishwarya Suhas Bandewar. The Forum below had allowed the said complaint and directed Org. Opposite Party by its order dated 31/12/2005 to refund Rs.40,000/- to the Org. Complainant with the interest @ 9 % p.a. Aggrieved by the said order dated 31/12/2005 the Org. Opposite Party had preferred the appeal bearing no.374/2008 before the State Commission. Honble State Commission by its order dated 13/06/2008 remanded the matter for consideration and directed the Forum...

Sou.Sarika Nandkumar Dhaigude Vs. Shri Duryodhan D. Ranvare and Others

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 12/11/2007 passed in Consumer Complaint No.258/2004, Sou.Sarika Nandkumar Dhaigude V/s. Shri.Duryodhan D. Ranvare, Chairman, Indira Charitable Trust and Others by Satara Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (Forum below in short). 2. It is the grievance of the appellant/original Complainant Sou.Sarika Dhaigude (herein referred as the Complainant) that she had registered herself with the hospital belonging to respondent no.1. Other respondents/opposite parties are the doctors attached to the said hospital. Complainant was registered herself for her first delivery with them. On 24/05/2004, she was admitted in the hospital, when she visited the hospital for routine check-up. She had undergone cesarean operation on 25/05/2004, though, unnecessary (according to the complainant) at the hands of the respondents/opposite parties Nos. 2 to 6. Consent of the complainant was not taken for cesare...

Nashik Merchants Co-op Bank Ltd., Tilak Path, Nashik Vs. Shri Karbhari ...

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 22/01/2007 passed in Consumer Complaint No.89/2006, Karbhari Kalu Kotare V/s. Nashik Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd., by Nashik Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (Forum below in short). 2. Respondent/Original Complainant had taken a loan from Appellant/Original Opposite Party Bank (herein referred as Bank) and purchased a tempo trax bearing No. MH-15-K-6072. Subsequently, since the respondent became defaulter, action was initiated by the bank under Co-Operative Societies Act and after obtaining recovery certificate under section 101 of the said Act, seized the vehicle, which was, subsequently auctioned. Consumer Complaint was filed by the respondent alleging that it was a high handed act on the part of the bank to seize the tempo trax vehicle in question and thus, claimed the relief. Forum below decreed the complaint directing the bank to pay Rs.73,000/- as compensation to the respondent...

Priyadarshini Constructions Through Its Partners: Mr. Vikram Shankarra ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar-Advocate h/f. Mr. U.P. Warunjikar-Advocate for the appellants. Perused the impugned award passed by the District Consumer Forum. While allowing the complaint, Forum below simply directed O.P. Builder to execute Deed of Conveyance in favour of Society and other prayers of the complainant stood rejected. Thereafter by making an application, time was sought by the appellant in the Forum below to extend the time to execute Conveyance deed on the ground that there was some technical difficulty. When that application was turned down, the appellant thought it fit to approach this Commission by filing the appeal. While filing the appeal, there is delay of 436 days. Delay is not at all properly explained in the condonation of delay application vide M.A.no.1121/2009. Delay is very huge and enormous and cannot be condoned lightly. Normally we are inclined to condone the delay, but delay of this magni...

Hansabai Shripati Bhosale Vs. Smt. Parubai Gopal Bhosale,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR5; 2009(111)BomLR3173

Mridula Bhatkar, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, S.D., Pune on 25/3/2008 allowing the amendment in the plaint under Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('The Code' for short). FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The respondents/original plaintiffs had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 257/96 against the petitioner/original defendants for declaration and entering their names in the record of rights about Gat No. 1238 of Mouje Winzar , Tal. Velhe, Dist. Pune. The said suit was decreed on 27/3/2003.No appeal was filed. However, on 25/3/2008 the respondents i.e.original plaintiffs made application under Section 151 and 152 of the Code for making amendment in the plaint and correction in the judgment and decree in respect of the description of the suit property which was wrongly described as Gat No. 1938 instead of Gat No. 1238. The learned Judge allowed the application by holding that the errors are due to accidental sl...

Star Television News Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3617; (2009)225CTR(Bom)140; [2009]317ITR66(Bom); [2009]184TAXMAN400(Bom)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner herein is a non-resident company. They filed an application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission on 5th March, 2007 under Section 246-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act) for settlement of the cases. By the present petition the petitioners seek to challenge the constitutional validity and legality of the provisions of Section 245HA(1)(iv) and Section 245HA(3) of the Income Tax Act as inserted by Finance Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as F.A. 2007) with effect from 1st June, 2007 as being ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. Chapter XIX-A was inserted in the Act by Taxation Law Amendment Act, 1975 with effect from 1st April, 1976. Since then, there have been several amendments. Some of the relevant provisions with which we are concerned with and need to be considered are, Section 245C which provides for making an application by an assessee before the Settlement Co...

Namdeo S/o Mahadeo Surjuse Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Home Ministry ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj649

P.D. Kode, J.1. By the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner working as a Constable in Maharashtra Police Service and compulsorily retired w.e.f. from 24.8.2000 under Rule 65(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 has thrown a challenge to common order dated 24.8.2000 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench dismissing Original Application Nos. 159/1996 and 513/1999 preferred by him challenging notice dated 28.5.1995 issued by respondent No. 3 informing that he would be retired in public interest w.e.f. 22.8.1995 or after expiry of three months period from the receipt of the said notice and against order dated 24.5.1999 passed by respondent No. 3 compulsorily retiring him. The petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.8.2000 passed by the Tribunal and directing respondents for reinstating and continuing him in service till superannuation.2. The facts giving rise to...

Sudhakar S. Pangol Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)25VST369(Bom)

D.G. Karnik, J.1. In each of these three petitions, the petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of Maharashtra Sales Tax on the Transfer of Property in Goods involved in the Execution of Works Contract (Re-enacted) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Works Contract Act, 1989') and pray for a declaration that the Works Contract Act, 1989 is unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) as well as Article 246(2) read with Entry No. 54 List II in Seventh Schedule read with Article 366 of the Constitution of India.2. Mr. Anturkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the grounds of challenge in all the three petitions are common. He took us through the facts stated in Writ Petition No. 496 of 1990 and submitted that decision on that petition would also be applicable to the other two petitions.3. Mr. Anturkar in fairness invited our attention to a decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 485 of 1990 (Builders Association of India v. ...

Bombay TarpaulIn Merchants' Association and Anr. Vs. State of Maharash ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)25VST45(Bom)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. Petitioner No. 1 appears to be an association of traders engaged along with others in the activities of providing temporary tarpaulin sheds to industrial concerns. It is the contention of the association that they look after general welfare activities of the members of the association. Petitioner No. 2 is a partnership firm which is a member of petitioner No. 1 and is also involved in the same activities as carried out by other members of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is engaged in the activity of providing services of temporary sheds to its customers. For that purpose, petitioner No. 2 maintains stock of shed materials like bamboos, bullies, tarpaulin, coir and other materials. On receipt of order to provide temporary shed to cover the given area or object, the concerned person takes material on site, applies his labour and gets the shed erected covering the given area or object. Petitioner No. 2 is also required to maintain the s...

Mr. Dilip Vora, Managing Partner, Ruby Associates, Mumbai Vs. Miss. Sh ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26/11/2008 appointing Commissioner for local investigation passed in consumer complaint no.353/2007, Miss Sheela Krishnan V/s. Mr. Dilip Vora by District Forum, Thane (Forum below in short). We heard Adv. Shri A.S. Vidyarthi for revisionist (Org. Opp. Party) and Adv. Mr. U.B. Wavikar for opponent (Org. complainant). We have carefully gone through the order passed by the Forum below and also through the entire material placed on record. This is second round of revision on the same issue and the facts and circumstances shows that though intention of the parties may not be to prolong the litigation, but such moves vitiates the very purpose of the consumer complaint to dispense justice by settling the dispute without causing the delay. Local investigation is always for the purpose to assist to assess the evidence placed on record under Section 13 of Consumer Prot...