Mumbai Court August 2009 Judgments

Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Vs. Santosh Balasaheb Olekar (Dec ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member None present for the appellant. By filing this appeal, appellant is seeking quashing of judgment/order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sangli. We are not going into merit of this appeal since appeal can be disposed of only on the ground of delay in filing this appeal. Complaint No.755/2007 was decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sangli on 20/12/2007 and the appeal is filed very belatedly after 438 days. Misc. application No.647/2009 filed seeking condonation of delay cannot satisfy us the just and sufficient cause to condone the delay. Delay is more than one year and cannot be condoned very lightly. Strong and sufficient grounds are required to be set out to seek condonation of delay. Grounds given are not sufficient to induce us to condone the delay. As such, we are not inclined to condone the enormous delay caused in filing this appeal. Misc. Application No.647/2009 for c...

Rajendra Daji Kolekar Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, L.i.C. of India O ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) This appeal has filed by Org. Complainant. The complaint dismissed by District Consumer forum, Sangli (Forum below in short) in Consumer Case No.401/2008 order dated 06/11/2008 2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: Complainant filed complaint against L.I.C. Office, Satara. According to the Complainant his brother Mohan had taken insurance policy for Rs.50,000/- from O.P. office on 10/10/2005. On 21/11/2005 his brother Mohan died in an accident. Since, he himself was nominee, he filed the petition and submitted it to L.I.C. The L.I.C. repudiated the claim by sending letter dated 10/01/2007. According to the Complainant, his brother Mohan had filed proposal form and gave all documents required for the policy on 10/10/2005 itself but, O.P.-L.I.C. delayed to issue the policy. The Complainant pleaded that unnecessarily by resorting to unfair trade practice L.I.C. repudiated his claim and therefore, he filed cons...

Raju Natthuji Dhengre Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Secreta ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4714; 2009(6)MhLj278

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner was convicted in the year 1995 for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. On 6-8-2003 the petitioner was released on parole leave for 30 days. On 10-8-2003 the petitioner moved an application for extension of parole leave by 30 days. The petitioner did not receive any communication from the jail authorities. He made telephonic enquiry on which the respondents assured him that the application for extension of parole leave would be granted. It is further contended by the petitioner that on 19-9-2003 the petitioner moved a fresh application for extension of parole leave by 30 days on the ground of illness of the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner also made telephonic enquiry with the authorities on which the petitioner was assured that his application for extension for par...

Kamat Printers Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Seni ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(170)LC91(Bombay)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the Settlement Commission directing payment of interest. The submission on behalf of the petitioners has been that no show cause notice as required under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was served on the petitioners. The show cause notice dated 16th June, 2000 only demanded duty and not interest. It is submitted that considering the provisions of Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962 as the issue of interest was not the subject of the case, the Settlement Commission in directing the petitioners herein to pay interest acted without jurisdiction.2. A few facts may be stated. The petitioner had imported one Heidelberg Offset Colour printing machine from Germany. The same was purchased through a known person by name Mr. Rajeev Batra of Delhi, who was also in the printing business and deals in purchase and sale of printing machines. According to the petitioner No. 2 an amount of ...

Dimexon, a Firm Registered Under the Provisions of the Indian Partners ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(241)ELT519(Bom)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm whose partners are national and citizen of India. The petitioner are manufacturers of Gems and Jewellery. It is the case of the petitioners that the action of the respondents in denying to them the benefits of exemption Notification No. 159/86 dated 1st March, 1986 is arbitrary. It is set out that the exemption notification grants exemptions to various machines/equipments which are imported for use in the manufacture of Gems and Jewllery by registered exporters of Gems and Jewellery and Cooperative Societies of Gold Smiths and artisans and used in processing and manufacture of gem and jewellery for the purpose of export. The impugned Notification under Serial No. 67 reads as 'steel pots/steel counter pins'. In the instant case we are concerned with steel pots which were imported by the petitioners and in respect of which the customs exemption notification is being denied to them.2. The respondents have filed a reply of one R...

Shri Sarjerao Narayan Chavan Vs. Shri Prakash Lala Mane Shri Prakash L ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr. C.N. Chavan-Advocate h/f. Mr. Karekar-Advocate for the appellant. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 31/3/2009 passed in consumer complaint no.38/2009 Shri Sarjerao Narayan Chavan v/s. Shri Prakash Lala Mane by District Consumer Forum, Satara. Perused the record. Appellant/complainant had entrusted work of construction of his house to respondent/org.O.P. at the total cost of Rs.3,15,600/-. After executing some work, respondent stopped the work and left. Therefore, appellant had to get incomplete work done by one Mr.Jamir Mehboob Shaikh and as a result of which he had to incurr additional expenditure. It is alleged by the appellant that respondent had executed work valued at Rs.2,45,600/- and, thus, had actually paid Rs.31,400/- more. Same is claimed in a consumer complaint along with additional expenditure of Rs.1,01,394/-, Rs.25,000/- towards the compensation for mental torture and Rs.10,000/- as...

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Through Its Branch Manager, N ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Smt. S. P. Lale, Honble Member. (1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.09.2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No.54/2008 by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Ratnagiri, whereby the Forum below directed the following: (b) Opposite Party to accept Rs.88,969/- (Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Nine only) as balance installments from the Complainant. Complainant shall deposit the said amount on or before 03.10.2008. (c) After depositing the amount by the Complainant, the Opposite Party shall issue No Dues Certificate to the Complainant on or before 24.10.2008. (d) Opposite Party to handover possession of the vehicle of the Complainant on or before 03.10.2008 at the place from where the said vehicle was lifted. (e) Opposite Party to handover the R.C. Book to the Complainant at the time of giving possession of the vehicle. (f) Opposite Party to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the Complainant on or before for physical and mental ...

Bhangar Bros. and Co. Pvt. Ltd. a Private Limited Company Under Compan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ167Bom; 2009(6)MhLj65

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. 2. By this Petition which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging Part-II award passed by the Labour Court whereby Labour Court was pleased to hold that the punishment awarded by Enquiry Officer was not just, fair and proper and the punishment of dismissal of workman given by the petitioner herein was disproportionate to the misconduct which was alleged against the workmen and, secondly, the order of termination was quashed and set aside. The said punishment was modified with the punishment of reprimand with loss of wages till their termination and, thirdly, the petitioner herein was directed to reinstate the workmen with continuity of service and full back-wages till 22/07/1985. 3. Brief facts are as under:4. Petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies A...

Shri Shrimkant Dinkar Ghorpade Vs. Branch Manager, Shri B.S. Kharat In ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal is directed against the impugned order/award dated 16/01/2009 Shri Shrimant Dinkar Ghorpade V/s. Branch Manager, Indian Bank and Anr. passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Satara (Forum below in short). Appellant/complainant had purchased a vehicle in auction sale and thereafter, since vehicle registration documents and no objection certificate of the registered owner to get transfer the vehicle in his name were not received from the respondent/org. O.P., this consumer complaint was filed. The same stood dismissed and feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is filed. According to respondent, vehicle was purchased in an auction by the appellant/complainant as per terms of the auction. As far as original registration of vehicle documents are concerned, respondent claimed that they are not with them. It is also alleged that they had no responsibility to supply the documents as mentioned by the co...

Shri B.S. Bhandarkar Vs. M/S. Gulmohar Constructions Co. and Others

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member None present for the appellant. Perused the appeal memo, application for condonation of delay as well as the impugned order/award. In the instant case, there is delay of 30 days in filing appeal. Except mentioning that certified copy of impugned order/award supplied free of cost by the Forum below was misplaced/lost and therefore, he had obtained certified copy on payment and then filed this appeal; no other reason is given. The circumstances mentioned are quite vague and insufficient to condone the delay. Affidavit filed in support of condonation of delay application mentioned that there is delay of only few days contrary to the statement made in the application and thus, we find that delay is not satisfactorily explained. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :- Order: 1. Misc. Appl. No.34/2009 for condonation of delay stands dismissed. 2. In the result, the appeal is not entertained. 3. No order as to c...