Mumbai Court September 2009 Judgments

Ghateshwar (Ghatadi) Seva Sastha, a Registered Public Trust Under Bomb ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj132

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgments and orders, dated 29.4.2000, passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur in seven appeals preferred by seven employees, holding termination of service effected by the petitioner illegal and directing the Management to pay compensation equal to salary of 24 months and costs of Rs. 2000/-of each appeal in exercise of power under Section 11(f) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), these writ petitions were filed in this Court.2. In support of the writ petitions, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal has found fault with the action of the petitioner -Management in making/offering payment of three months' salary in lieu of three months' notice as contemplated by Rule 25A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service), Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred as to as 'Rules') only on the ground t...

Shri Shriniwas Shankar Potnis and ors. Vs. Raghukul Sahakari Griharach ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj368

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have preferred this Appeal challenging the Judgment and decree for specific performance of contract in Special Civil Suit No. 595 of 1986 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, in favour of the original plaintiff, who is respondent No. 1 in the present Appeal.2. To state in brief, the plaintiff is a Co-operative Housing Society and it filed the suit for specific performance of contract against the defendants. The suit pertains to two properties shown as property A and property B in the plaint. Property A is 2 acres and 10 gunthas land from southern side out of Survey No. 30/2 admeasuring 13 acres and 15 gunthas belonging to defendant No. 3 Arviind Shankar Potnis. Property B is 2 acres and 2 gunthas land from southern side of Survey No. 29/2 admeasuring 1 Hectare and 91 Ares and it belongs to the defendant No. 2 - Raghunath Shankarrao Potnis.3. According to the plaintiff, it had purchased certain lands and constructed certa...

Mangalabai Shantilal Darda Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR926

Shinde S.S., J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the Order dated 24/10/2008 passed by the respondent No. 2 Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Review Application No. VAN. 1404/P.K./295/N.P.23.2. The background facts for filing the present writ petition as disclosed in the memo of the writ petition are as under.In 1989, Kerosene Semi wholesale dealer licence No. 9 of 1989 came to be granted in favour of petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that, at present, the petitioner is getting 65 K.L. Kerosene quota from the State Government and at present 41 retailers are attached to the petitioner.In the year 1997 in Shirpur Taluka, there were 7 semi wholesale dealers distributing kerosene through out Shirpur taluka.On 11/3/1999, respondent No. 7 Hukumchand Motilal Sethiya, by his application dated 11/3/1999, requested the respondent No. 6 to cancel his semi wholesale dealer licence and thereby surrendered his semi wholes...

Mr.Janardhan Babu Kotian, Navi Mumbai Vs. Mr. P.S. Shenoy, Chairman an ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) The complainant has filed this complainant against Bank of Baroda and against its three officers alleging deficiency in service on their part. According to the complainant he was employed in Bank of Baroda, Zaveri Bazar Branch. He had applied for housing loan from Bank of Baroda to purchase a CIDCO plot. The bank agreed to give housing loan of Rs.2,35,000/- and he raised Rs.85,000/- loan from H.D.F.C. Bank. For getting loan he had deposited some documents in original with his own bank which included original sale deed signed by CIDCO and himself in respect of CIDCO flat and the original letter of possession given by CIDCO to him. The Respondent No.4 Bank of Baroda acknowledged receipt of these two vital documents before they disbursed loan to him. 2) In November-2000, he wanted to sell the said CIDCO flat. He therefore approached O.P. No.4 to redeem the loan and paid entire amount with interest as demanded by O.Ps. He reques...

Raman Chandrakant Govitrikar and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member In the instant case, clubbing claim based on two different causes of action, this consumer complaint is filed with aggregate valuation over Rs.20 Lakhs. Such course is not permissible. Complainants have to elect complaint in respect of only one cause of action. In either case, pecuniary jurisdiction is below Rs.20 Lakhs and as such, we pass the following order:- Order:- 1. Complaint is returned back to the complainants. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

M/S. Ekvira Developers Partner Shri Ganesh M. Salaskar, Mulund (E), Mu ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of rejection of his application by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Thane in execution proceeding and asked the appellant to pay certain amount to the decree holder forthwith. The appellant had given some cheques in the Forum below, but those cheques were dishonoured and thereafter, the Forum below was pleased to issue non-bailable warrant against the judgment debtor/appellant herein. Thereafter, judgment debtor/appellant approached the Forum below and filed an application for cancellation of warrant. In that application, he had not even mentioned that he was ready to immediately deposit Rs.15,000/- in cash since his earlier cheques for that amount were dishonoured. The Learned Forum below was pleased to reject that application. As such present appeal has been filed. After hearing Mr.R.R. Mahagaonkar, Advocate for the appellant for consider...

Konark Wood Panels Limited, Mumbai and Another Vs. the New India Assur ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) The complainants have filed this complaint against New India Assurance Company Limited and also against State Bank of Saurashtra, Fort and India Resins and Paints Limited alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.P./Insurance Company. 2) Complainants complaint against O.Ps is as under: 3) Complainants are associate companies carrying on business of manufacturing and selling timber products. O.P. is a public sector undertaking providing services of granting insurance to cover risk of various hazardous. According to the complainants, on 5/12/1988 the complainants purchased 475.0 Cubic Meters Keruing timber imported from Malaysia from one of their sister companies M/s.Omega Investments and Properties Private Limited who were importers and who had stocked the material at a log yard of M/s.P.V.Ramanmurthy and Sons. The said yard was located in Vizagapatnam opposite Jubilee Hospital. The said timbe...

Smt. Rukmini Vishwanath Shendge Vs. Shri Shriniwas Tuljaram Burudkar a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010CriLJ748

S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on a complaint filed by the respondent No. 1.2. The main contention of Mr. Gangal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that two of the five vital ingredients of the offence under Section 138 as laid down by the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. (2002) 2 SCC 745 have not been followed, viz., ingredients Nos. (iii) and (v). The five ingredients laid down by the apex Court in paragraph 10 in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd's case read as follows:(i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any debt or other liability;(ii) that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;(iii) that ...

Smt. Ritinha Marques Also Known as Rita Assuncao Adelaide-monica De Ma ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR91

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Appellants herein were the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 78/96. The said suit was dismissed for want of prosecution.2. The present appellants filed an application for restoration of suit in which they averred the facts as follows:(i) The deceased plaintiff had suffered a stroke in the month of January, 1998 after which she was bed ridden and was confined to the house.(ii) The plaintiff was also suffering from high blood pressure, heart problems etc.(iii) Though the plaintiff had received the notice dated 2.6.1998 from her lawyer informing her about his intention to withdraw from the matter she was unable to engage another lawyer due to her ill health.(iv) Because of these reasons, the plaintiff did not appear before this Hon'ble Court on 3.11.98 on which day the suit was dismissed for default.3. The appellants placed reliance on the medical certificate as to sickness of Smt. Ritinha Marques.4. They had also filed application for condonation of delay along with t...

The Sub-divisional Engineer and the Executive Engineer, Opp. Shanimand ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Mrs. S.P. Lale, Honble Member This appeal is directed against the order dated 08/01/1999 passed in consumer complaint No.668/1993 by District Consumer Forum Thane, whereby Forum below directed O.P.Nos.2and3 to pay jointly and severally Rs.5,000/- to the complainant by way of damages. Being aggrieved by the said order, org. O.P. Nos.2and3 have filed present appeal. It is alleged by the complainant that he was not getting water supply and there was no meter reading and water rate bills. Bill was sent by the O.P. irregularly showing consumption of water without there being any consumption of water. According to the complainant, he was sanctioned half inch water connection in his house and in Section 21 and 22 of the city, there used to be uninterrupted water supply in their water tap. However, there was no water supply from 1986-87 onwards till filing of the present complaint. It is further alleged by the complainant that he received a bill of Rs.660/- for the period fro...