Mumbai Court August 2009 Judgments

M/S. Om Sai Corporation Through Partner Shri Datta H.Dube and Sou.indu ...

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 24/10/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.1083/2007 M/s.Om Sai Corporation V/s. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and another passed by District Consumer Forum, Sangli. 2. Admittedly, appellant/original complainant has taken Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy (Material Damage) from respondent/O.P.no.1 M/s.New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Due to heavy rains on 22nd and 23rd June 2007, flood water entered and logged into all the basement godowns, as a result of which the goods stored there caused damage. Insurance claim for the said loss amounting to Rs.4,79,306/- and on other counts was made. Insurance Co. repudiated the said claim as per its letter dated 21/9/2007 stating that the cause of loss was heavy rainfall and the same is not covered under the scope of the policy. Feeling aggrieved thereby, consumer complaint is filed, which stood partly allowed awarding the claim ...

Breach Candy Hospital Trust Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Bom)381

D.G. Karnik, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dt. 31st March, 2009 passed by the Chief CIT, Mumbai (respondent No. 1) rejecting the petitioner's request for grant of approval under Section 10(23C)(via) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for the asst. yr. 2002-03 to asst. yr. 2008-09 and onwards.2. The petitioner is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1913 whose main object is creating and maintaining a hospital for philanthropic purposes. The petitioner is also registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The petitioner was granted exemption under Section 10(22A) of the Act for the years 1970-71 to 1995-96. In the year 1996-97, an issue was raised by the tax authorities whether the petitioner could be considered as carrying on its activities solely for philanthropic purpose and by an order dt. 26th March, 1991, the petitioner was assessed to income-tax holding that petitioner did not exist solely for ...

Suresh Ambadas Khode and Others Vs. Opal Farm Agro Chemical Pvt. Ltd., ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Mr.Ajay Misar, Advocate for the appellants. This appeal is filed against the order passed in consumer complaint Nos.95 to 100/2008, 104 to 108/2008 and 129 to 140/2008 since on the point of territorial jurisdiction District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Nashik was pleased to dismiss the complaints. Now, appellants want to withdraw this appeal and file fresh complaints in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kolhapur. Hence, we pass the following order :- Order: 1. Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn. 2. Appeal as such stands dismissed since appellants want to file fresh complaints in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kolhapur. 3. Appellants may file consumer complaints in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kolhapur and question of limitation in filing complaints at Kolhapur shall be decided by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kolhapur. 4. Copies of the order be furnished to...

The Partner, Rainbow Realtors, Queen’s Seema, Mira Road (E), Than ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 03/01/2009 passed in consumer complaint no.03/2004, Rainbow Realtors V/s. Mr.Solomon Esau David by District Forum, Thane (Forum below in short). Respondent/org.complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed a consumer complaint that appellant/org.opp.party (hereinafter referred as developer) agreed to sale flat no.701 admeasuring 750 sq.ft. in a building known as Daffodil at Queens Park Complex as more particularly described in the complaint para 1, for a consideration of Rs.5 Lakhs and accordingly received consideration duly acknowledged by receipt dated 18/07/1994. Consequent to said agreement dated 04/08/1994 was also executed. The possession was not delivered as promised in spite of reminders dated 07/01/1997, 15/07/1997, 20/01/1998, 09/07/1998, 12/02/1999, 04/09/1999, 10/03/2000, 16/11/2000, 13/06/2001 and 22/12/2001. Therefore, by filing consumer complaint on 30/1...

Shri Rohit G. Mehta and Others Vs. Avinash T. Bhosale Development Offi ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member None present for the appellants. We have received a letter from Shri Rohit G. Mehta and others by post. They are appellants in Appeal No.1394/2005. They sent this application for withdrawal of the appeal since according to them respondents are again informed to start dialogue and they are hopeful that matter involved in this appeal will be resolved through mutual consent. They had also made a grievance that they want to withdraw this appeal since matters of 1999 are being taken by this Commission for final hearing and their matter is of 2005. In any view of the matter, appeal of 2005 cannot be taken up on priority basis unless appellant or respondent is a senior citizen or disabled person or widow. Since, 1999 matters are quite old they are being given priority as per directions of Bombay High Court. Despite their grievance, we cannot give priority to their appeal. Even otherwise they want to withdraw the appeal as ...

Neelam Y. Aldankar Vs. M/S. Trimurti Builders and Developers, Kamothe, ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Smt S.P. Lale, Honble Member: Appeal baring no.873/2007 filed by the org. opposite party/Trimurti Builders and Developers feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16/04/2007 passed in consumer complaint no. 79/2006 passed by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane. Forum below partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed opposite party as under:- 1. Complaint No.79/2006 is partly allowed. 2. Opponent is directed to refund Rs,36,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Thousand only) along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of respective payment. 3. Opponent is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards the compensation. 4. Opponent is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards the cost of this complaint. 5. Opponent is directed to obtain Occupancy Certificate and from the society and effect the transfer of property in the name of Society within 8 weeks from the date of passing of this order. Appeal bearing no.859/2007 is fi...

V. Anto S/O. M. Vargheese Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Directo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3764

Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for admission to the MBBS Degree course under Other Backward Class Category (for short, 'the OBC') quota in the ensuing academic year in the Armed Forces Medical College, Pune [for short, 'AFMC, (Pune)']. 3. The petitioner claims to belong to the OBC. On 17/1/2008, the petitioner applied for Entrance Examination for the admission to the MBBS Degree course in the General Category. He appeared for the written test for the Entrance Examination on 4/5/2008. On 17/5/2008, he sent a letter to respondent 2 i.e. the Director & Commandant, Officer-in-charge, Admission Cell, AFMC, Pune, requesting him that his candidature may be considered under the OBC reservation quota for admission to the MBBS Degree co...

Girish Gangadhar Agrawal Vs. Jiteshkumar Hasmukha Vakhariya

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj875

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition by tenant is directed against concurrent findings of the learned Civil Judge and the District Judge that the petitioner failed to pay arrears of rent, permitted increases, taxes and other service charges and thereby incurred ejectment under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.2. The litigation has chequered history. The petitioner is admittedly a tenant in respect of a godown situated at Municipal House No. 168 in Ward No. 64 at Akola, owned by the respondent. The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the landlord, his brother and two others, namely Nitin Kumar and Jagdishchandra. This suit bearing No. 808/1997 was for an injunction to restrain the landlords from obstructing the tenant's way to the godown. It was decreed on 10.07.1998. On 3rd January, 1999, the landlord sent notice stating that the tenant was in arrears of rent, demanding payment of arrears for a period from Diwali of 1998 to Diwali of 1999 @ Rs. 296.25p...

The residents of Aforamento and Ambekhandem Ward (through Shri Ronnie ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR473

U.D. Salvi, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.2. The petitioners are seeking writ of certiorari and writ of mandamus for setting aside the order dated 2.7.2009 passed by the Additional Director of Panchayat (II), Panaji, Goa refusing the intervention of the petitioners in the Panchayat Appeal No. 110/2009 and deferring the hearing of the issue of maintainability of the said appeal pending before it.3. Panchayat Appeal No. 110/2009 before the Additional Director of Panchayat (II), Panaji, Goa has been preferred by the respondent No. 1 Francis Fernandes for throwing challenge to the removal notice dated 29.4.2009 issued by the Village Panchayat of Reis Magos, the respondent No. 2 pursuant to the Panchayat resolution No. 9(8) dated 17.4.2009. This removal notice requires the respondent No. 1 Francis Fernandes to remove a mobile tower erected on his property. According to the petitioners, raising of the said mobile tower at the village Reis Magos being danger...

Sow. Sushma W/O Hemantrao Bodas Vs. Smt. Malti W/O Madhukar Machile

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3974

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order of issuance of Succession Certificate in favour of present Respondent passed by the by Civil Judge Senior Division, Beed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 161 of 2005 decided on 29.9.2006, which judgment and order is further confirmed by the learned District Judge-I, Beed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 101 of 2006 decided on 24.10.2007.2. It is not disputed that Madhukar Machile retired from government service on superannuation on 27.8.1992. Admittedly, he was father of present revision applicant Sushma Bodas who is his married daughter residing at Akola. Present Respondent Malti filed Application bearing Misc. Civil Application No. 161 of 2005 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed, seeking grant of succession certificate in respect of the amounts lying in the name of deceased Madhukar Machile in his bank accounts with State Bank of Hyderabad, Bank of Maharashtra and Beed District Central Coo...