Mumbai Court August 2009 Judgments

Baker Gauges India Limited and Shri A.A. Baker Vs. Union of India (Uoi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR509

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. The 1st petitioner is carrying on business of manufacturing Precision Screw Gauges and are an export oriented company where 50% of their production is exported. For the purpose of manufacturing procedure Precision Screw Gauges they needed to import a second hand 'Plain Thread Grinding Machine' from U.K. In the Import Export Policy of April 1988 to March, 1991 Thread Grinding Machines were listed at Serial No. 128 of Appendix I Part B, which Appendix covered 'Capital Goods allowed under Open General Licence'. Para 30(1) of Chapter 3 of the Import and Export Policy reads as under:Import of Second hand machinery30(1)Items of machinery allowed for import under Open General Licence (vide Appendix I Part B) can also be imported in secondhand condition. In such cases, however, the importer will produce to the Customs authorities at the time of clearance, a certificate from professional independent Chartered Engineer/any Institution of Engineers in the country from whi...

Mr. Vilas Gopal Dongre Vs. the District Special Auditor, Class-i, Co-o ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This is an appeal filed by complainant whose complaint has been rejected at the admission stage by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Thane. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- Complainant filed consumer complaint on 15/09/2008 in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Thane. Thereafter some objections were raised by the office. Complainant was required to remove objections within 15 days as per Regulations of the National Commission. Complainant did not remove the objections within 21 days in the first instance. Moreover, it was found by the Forum below that complaint was not filed within period of limitation and therefore, it was pleased to pass the order rejecting the complaint at the stage of admission itself. That order is came to be passed on 20/12/2008. Aggrieved by this order, appellant has filed this appeal. We heard appellant-Mr.Vilas Gopal Dongre in person. We are fin...

Dr. Medha Kotwal Lele Vs. Ruby Tours and Travels and Another

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This is an appeal filed by the complainant whose consumer complaint No.11/2008 had been dismissed by the Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Pune by the judgment/order dated 30/04/2009. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- Complainant is a medical practitioner of Pune. She had file consumer complaint against Ruby Tours and Travels and Aeroflot Russian Airlines alleging deficiency in service. According to her she wanted to travel to Moscow and further to Madrid in Spain and therefore, she purchased two air-tickets for herself and her daughter Ms.Lara Vijay Lele from O.P.No.2 through its agent O.P.No.1 by paying requisite fare of Rs.54,000/-. Tickets were from Mumbai to Madrid and return route was from Paris to Mumbai. In the tickets issued to her O.P.No.2 had shown route as Mumbai to Moscow and Moscow to Madrid. Plane was to change at Moscow and return route was Paris-Moscow and Mosco...

Shri Bhalchandra Trimbak Shidhye Vs. Shri Sattish Govind Rao, Propriet ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member:- Being aggrieved by the rejection of complaint at the threshold itself by the District Forum, Thane by its order dated 20/10/2008, whereby Forum below rejected the complaint no.265/2008 at the stage of admission, the original complainant has filed this appeal challenging the said order. The complainant had filed consumer complaint no.265/2008 against the builder-developer/ Shri Satish Govind Rao-Proprietor of M/s.Shanti Construction. He had entered into development agreement and had given his property for development on his own land of Village-Chickanghar, Taluka-Kalyan, District- Thane. In terms of development agreement dated 24/08/1999, which was rectified by rectification deed dated 02/02/2005, builder/developer was supposed to give one residential flat at first floor above the stilt admeasuring 520 sq.ft. built up, stilt and front side of terrace, shop no.5 and 6 on the ground floor admeasuring 375 sq.ft. colle...

Shri Amol Dattatraya Mone, District-raigad Vs. Branch Manger, Oriental ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar,Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) Being aggrieved by the dismissal of complaint No.108/2006 by the judgment dated 5/6/2007 delivered by the District Consumer Forum, Alibag, the original complainant has filed this appeal. 2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: 3) The complainant is running medical store at Mangaon, District-Raigad. It is styled as M/s.New Mahalakshmi Medical Stores. He sells medicines in his shop. According to him, he had purchased shopkeepers Insurance Policy from respondent/insurance company for the period to 23/2/2005 to 22/2/2006. He had paid premium of Rs.1,965/- while purchasing the policy. In July-2005, there were heavy rains in District Raigad. There was heavy flood at Mangaon. The flood water entered in the shop of the complainant and he suffered huge loss. The medicines, cosmetics etc. was washed or damaged in the said heavy floods. He therefore suffered loss of Rs.1 Lakh to Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant got recorde...

Jehangir Ardeshir Rabadi, Indian Parsee Zoroastrian Inhabitant, Vs. Ms ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj776

V. Mohta, J.1. The Testamentary Petition No. 312/2000 was taken out for Probate of the Last Will and Testament dated 23.02.1997 of Minoo Burjorjee Mukadam by plaintiff No. 1, who is nephew and plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 are the Executors.2. As objection was raised/file by the defendant, the Petition was converted into the Suit and proceeded accordingly.3. The defendant never appeared after conversion. She did not led evidence. She did not even appeared before the Commissioner in spite of due notices.4. The issues were framed as under:1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the deceased Minoo Burjorjee Mukadum @ Minoo B. Mukadum @ M.B. Mukadum had executed his last Will and Testament dated 23.02.1997 in favour of the plaintiffs?2. Whether the Defendant proves that the deceased Minoo Burjorjee Mukadum @ Minoo B. Mukadum @ M. B. Mukadum had executed his last Will and Testament dated 01.03.1994?3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the Probate on the basis of the Will and Testament dated 23.02....

Archana Hemant Naik Vs. Urmilaben I. Naik and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010CriLJ751

A.S. Oka, J.1. The revision applicant is an applicant in an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). In the said application, the applicant had impleaded six opponents. The first opponent Hemant is the husband of the applicant. The applicant married to said Hemant on 9th May 1986. The second opponent in the said application is the brother-in-law of the revision applicant. The fourth opponent is the wife of the second opponent. The third opponent is the mother-inlaw of the revision applicant. The third opponent in the said application has been impleaded as the first respondent in this revision application. The fifth opponent in the said application under Section 12 of the said Act is the sister-in-law of the revision applicant. The sixth opponent in the application is the husband of the fifth opponent.2. According to the case made out by the revision applicant, she was residing along with her husb...

M/S. Muktadevi Krushi Seva Kendra, District – Pune and Another Vs ...

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 30/09/1998 passed in Consumer complaint No.APDF/153/1997, Santosh G.Waghmare V/s. M/s.Kuktadevi Krushi Seva Kendra and Others passed by Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Pune (Forum below in short). 2) It is the case of the Respondent NO.1/Org. Complainant (hereinafter referred as Complainant) that he had sown tomato crop plan in his field viz. in an area 30 R from gut no.1797 and 14 R from gut no.1800. He has used Pesticides/Insecticide/Fungicide, namely, Dimethoate 30 %, Sypermol 10 % and Powder Moti-Topsine 70 %, respectively manufactured by Respondent/Org.O.P. No.2-M/s.TropicalAgro System(India)Ltd.,Respondent/Org.O.P.No.3-M/s.Konkan Pesticides and Respondent/Org.O.P.No.4-M/s.Motilal Pesticides (India) Pvt.Ltd. It is further alleged by the Complainant that after using mixture spray of all above items, his tomato crop sustained severe damage and he could not g...

Shri S.K.L. Shrivastava Natraj Darshan Housing Society, Dombivali Vs. ...

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 28/5/2003 passed in consumer complaint no.130/2000 Shri S.K.L.Shrivastava v/s. Administrative officer, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. by Central Mumbai District Consumer Forum (Forum below in short). Admitted facts are that Scooter bearing no.MAV 2873 is insured with the respondent/original O.P. and it met with an accident as it was given dash by a car. Insurance claim was made to the extent of Rs.4825/- covering the costs of repair inclusive of labour. Surveyor made the assessment to the extent of Rs.1000/-. Insurance claim was allowed accordingly. Forum below also uphold the same. Feeling aggrieved thereby, original complainant preferred this appeal. Heard Mr.Subodh Gokhale-Advocate for the appellant. Mr.A.S.Vidyarthi-Advocate for the respondent present and heard. Vakalatnama filed by him taken on record. Perused the record. Complainant has made an insurance claim under...

Ajinkya Nagari Co-op.Credit Society Ltd., Sangli and Others Vs. Shri B ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr. A.J. Chougule-Advocate for the petitioners. Respondent in person. This revision has been directed against the issuance of non-bailable warrants against some of the Directors of the Ajinkya Nagari Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. by the Forum below and, therefore, original O.Ps who are judgment debtors in complaint no.1119/2007 have filed this revision petition. What is pertinent to note is the fact that revision petitioners are and were original O.Ps/judgement debtors. They failed to comply the award passed by District Consumer Forum in consumer complaint no.1119/2007. They have not filed appeal against the award passed by District Consumer Forum, which has become final. That award is being executed by the executing court. In the executing court, revision petitioners were judgment debtors and non-bailable warrant has been issued against revision petitioner no.2 and some other directors, who are not revisi...