Mumbai Court August 2009 Judgments

Shree Krishna Trading Company Through Its Proprietor Shri Pravinbhai L ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR1; 2009(111)BomLR3658; 2009(6)MhLj255

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition by tenant takes exception to appellate judgment by the learned District Judge whereby he reversed the dismissal of suit seeking petitioner's ejectment, and instead, decreeing the suit, ordered petitioner's ejectment on the ground of bonafide need of respondent/ landlord.2. The facts. material for deciding this petition are as under : The premises in question are business premises of the petitioner landlord. He sought to recover possession of the premises on the grounds of bonafide need and nonuser Clauses (g) and (n) of Section 16(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Act. On the ground of nonuser, covered under Section 16(1)(n) of the Act, the District Court has held against the landlord. He has not questioned this finding. Hence, pleadings and evidence in this behalf could be safely excluded from consideration. Though in paragraph 4 of the written statement the petitioner/ tenant had admitted that he was plaintiff's tenant, an attempt was made at trial to show th...

The Secretary, Smt. Phundabi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Sanchalit Janpir ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR39; 2009(111)BomLR3787

S.S. Shinde, J.1. This petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 22.11.2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad in Appeal No. 189 of 1998. The background facts of the case, are as under:2. The respondent No. 1 herein, being aggrieved by the oral termination of his services, preferred appeal before the School Tribunal, Aurangabad contending that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in petitioners school in the academic year 1996-97. It is further case of respondent No. 1 that in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the petitioner No. 1 school, he applied for the post of Assistant Teacher and he was interviewed and selected for the said post. He joined his duties in July, 1996, for the academic year 1996-97 in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. It is further case of the respondent No. 1 that the management after considering his satisfactory performance, appointed him for next academic year i.e. 1997-98 on the same post which was vacant. Since h...

Y.T. Entertainment Limited a Company Incorporated Under the Provisions ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR148

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1 The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) for various reliefs of injunction, protection against respondents 1 to 3 on the foundation of arbitration clauses in the Agreements dated 26.12.2007, 08.05.2008, 27.10.2008 and specifically last Deed of Settlement dated 07.04.2009 (the deed) confirming the liabilities and to make the payments by the instalments not, later than 30.06.2009. The amount of Rs.7,25,00,000/( Rupees seven crore twenty five lacs), was due as per above three Agreements. It was mutually settled and reduced to Rs. 5,01,00,000/(Rupees five crore and one lac), towards full and final settlement. The respondents failed to make payment and as except, one, all other cheques were bounced. Therefore, the petition.2 The basic clauses of the Deed are as under:(8) The mode of payment and due date is the essence of this arrangement and we agree to make the payment as stated above. In case if we fail to ...

Vasu Chemicals Vs. Pest Control India Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: LC2010(1)4

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This is an action for infringement and passing of in respect of the Plaintiffs' trade mark 'ALGINOL' used in respect of fungicides and algicides. The mark has been registered for goods under Class V with the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay. In addition to the usual reliefs to protect the mark and to prevent the infringement and passing off thereof the Plaintiffs have also sought a decree in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-by way of damages and in the alternative for an order directing the Defendants to submit the accounts of their dealings in respect of the goods of the above description under the trade mark 'ALGINOL' or in any other name to show the profits earned by them in their dealings in such goods. The Plaintiffs have also sought an order for the accounts and for a decree for such amounts as may be found due on taking accounts for such profits earned by the Defendants.PLAINTIFFS' CASE:2. The Plaintiffs have settled the suit with Defendant No. 1 in terms of the con...

Sampat Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Maruti Chowk, Sangli and Ot ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Mr. Subodh Gokhale, Advocate for the petitioners. This Revision Petition is directed against the alleged order dated 16/07/2009 passed in Execution Application No.477/2008, Shri Dhondiram B. Gawli V/s. Sampat Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit and Ors., on an application requesting to issue warrant against judgment debtors by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sangli (Forum below in short). It was an application to issue non-bailable warrant against non-applicant No.3 who preferred to remain absent in spite of service of bailable warrant on him. Similarly, bailable warrants were requested to be issued against judgment debtors/non-applicant Nos.2and4 for their appearance. Forum below directed to issue bailable warrant of Rs.1,000/- against judgment debtor/non-applicant No.2 and directed to issue non-bailable warrant against judgment debtor/non-applicant No.3. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this Revision Petition is p...

Krishnamai Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Ghonashi Thru Its Chairman ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Applicants-appellants wanted to challenge the impugned order/award dated 24/06/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.126/2008 Mr.A.M. Chavan V/s. Krishnamai Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. and Ors. by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Satara (Forum below in short). There is delay of one year in filing appeal. Therefore, Misc. Application No.1218/2009 is filed to condone the same. We heard Mr.U.R. Patil, Advocate for the applicants-appellants on delay condonation application. There is not a single statement on fact averted in the application on the basis of which it could be shown that there is sufficient cause to condone the delay. Fact of appointing Administrator over the Society and stating that there is a sufficient cause to condone the delay is not at all sufficient to establish that the delay is satisfactory explained. Applicants failed to justify the delay caused in filing appeal. We hold accordingly and...

Mr. Ninad Anil Lokre Vs. the Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited, Mumba ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) Heard Mr. V.X.Dsilva, Adv. for the complainant and Mr.S.B.Prabhavalkar, Adv. for the O.P. The complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of Saraswat Bank in respect of DEMAT account he had opened with it. According to the complainant, the O.P. did not verify signatures on delivery instruction slips and released the shares. He had not given instructions to the bank to accept delivery instructions slips singed by anybody and to release the shares. The delivery instruction slips tendered in the bank were forged and fabricated. The telephone number appearing on those slips did not belong to him or to his attorney. So, it is the grievance of the complainant that without any lawful authority from the complainant, the O.P. bank released the shares from the DEMAT account. The bank had not taken reasonable diligence and had not shown ordinary prudence while releasing shares of the complainant. Henc...

Arora Fibres Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR505

Rebello F.I., J.1. Petitioner imported capital goods for the purpose of processing polyester waste. A show cause notices dated 31.7.1998 and 7.8.1998 were served on the petitioner. Both the show cause notices called upon the petitioner to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. The petitioner filed a reply to both the notices and showed cause.2. On 29.3.2000 petitioner filed a settlement application being No. 9 of 2000, under Section 127-B of the Customs Act, 1962. In this application, the petitioner admitted the duty liability as Rs. 1,23,81,895/-. The petitioner prayed for inter alia (1) waiver of interest, (2) release of two bank guarantees dated 7.9.1994 and 23.1.1995 deposited with the DGFT Mumbai, (3) Permission to pay duty liability in installments, (4) to grant immunity from imposition of any fine and penalty, (5) immunity from prosecution and (6) permission to pay C.V.D. Separately.3. The application was fixed for admission on 10.5.2000. The petitioner submitted that the...

Mr. Shaunak H. Sayta Vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd., Lower Parel, Mumbai

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 14/7/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.4/2007 Mr.Shaunak H. Sayta v/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. by Central Mumbai District Consumer Forum. Complaint stood dismissed and feeling aggrieved thereby, original complainant has filed this appeal. 2. Appellant/complainant had taken a loan of Rs.2 lakhs in the month of September 2005 from respondent/original opponent bank (herein after referred as Bank for brevity). Appellant made an application for top up loan, which was sanctioned to him in the month of July 2006. Accordingly, Rs.1,60,524/- from the sanctioned top up loan were adjusted towards foreclosure/satisfaction of the first loan and balance of Rs.38,486/- were remitted to the complainant. Said remittance was refused by the complainant. Complainant informed bank that he did not agree with the conditions of top up loan. A Correspondence followed. Bank informed as per its letter dated 23/11/2...

Mrs. Arshtul AminuddIn Shaikh Vs. Sir Harkisandas Narottamdas Hospital ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) This complaint has been filed by the lady complainant against Sir Harkisandas Narottamdas Hospital and Research Centre alleging deficiency in service on the part of it. 2) Briefly case of the complainant against the hospital is that on 2/1/2002, she was having chest pain. She went to O.P.D. of J.J.Hospital. On examination, it was found that her blood pressure was high. There was no proper palpitation and there was severe pain in chest. E.C.G. was taken in J.J.Hospital and then she was admitted in the J.J.Hospital. They collected blood sample for pathological test of CKMB and her husband was asked to take sample to the laboratory of O.P./Hospital. The sample was deposited in the laboratory of the O.P. on the same day and Rs.325/- was paid as laboratory charges. On the same night, report was received from the O.P./Hospital which revealed that CKMB was as high as 2490 whereas normally it should be just 25. Seeing the report, do...