Mumbai Court September 2009 Judgments

Secretary/Manger, Sarvodaya GramIn Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Lt ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal is filed by org.opp.party/Patsanstha against the judgment and award passed by District Forum, Sangli in consumer complaint no.832/2007 decided on 06/12/2008. By the said judgment and award, the opposite party/Society has been directed to pay to the complainant three deposits amounts in damduppat scheme and to pay interest @7% p.a. from 21/01/2007 till actual realisation and also directed society to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs. Aggrieved thereby, Society and its Directors have filed this appeal. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: Opposite party/Society is styled as Sarvodaya Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Kolhapur. Complainant had kept some deposits with the opposite party/Society under damduppat scheme. The maturity date of the three deposits receipts was over and thereafter, the complainant asked for return of those amounts with interest under damduppat scheme. The oppos...

Ashoka Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. a Private Limited Company Registered Under C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR29; 2009(6)MhLj99

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The Appeal is directed against the rejection of the application filed by the present appellant before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nahsik, for appointment of an arbitrator to settle certain disputes between the appellant and the respondent arising out of the contract for construction. 2. Admitted facts are that the present respondent-defendant is a Public Limited Company. Previously it was known as 'M/s. Super Milk Makers Pvt. Ltd.' M/s. Super Milk Makers Pvt. Ltd. Issued tender on 28.4.1993 for the civil work for the construction of a factory building and other works at Integrated Dairy Project on a plot at MIDC Industrial Area at Sinnar, District Nahsik. The plaintiff/appellant submitted the tender on 28.4.1993 and it was accepted on 9.6.1993. The work order was actually issued on 25.6.1993 and as per the terms of the contract, the work was to be completed within a period of 15 months from the date of work order. The appellant started the work as per the contra...

Babasaheb S/O. Jijiba Gaikwad Vs. Vithal S/O. Shyamrao Shelke

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR25

P.R. Borkar, J.1. These three Civil Revision Applications present almost identical questions of law & facts and therefore they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. Originally three respondents from these three revision applications filed three suits for recovery of consideration amounts paid as per saledeeds, which were executed on 09.06.1982, in their favour by the present revision applicant, who is common in all three revision applications. It is not disputed that the revision applicant Babasaheb was owner to the extent of 1/4th share in Survey No. 256 to 261, situated at village Sukta, Tal. Bhum, Dist. Osmanabad. By the three different saledeeds executed on 09.06.1982, revision applicant - Babasaheb executed saledeeds in respect of different portions of lands in favour of the respondents. Respondent - Vithal in Regular Civil Revision Application No. 99 of 2003 had paid Rs. 9500/as consideration. Respondent - Jalindar in Civil Revision Application No. 100 of 2003 had...

The Brihanmaharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd. Vs. the Oriental Insurance ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR38; 2009(6)MhLj157

1. Admit.2. Mr. Vidyarthi, learned Advocate, waives service for the Respondent No. 1 and Mrs. Bhilare, learned Advocate, waives service for the Respondent No.2. With the consent of the learned Advocates, the First Appeal is taken for final hearing today itself.3. The Appellant is the Original Plaintiff and the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are the Original Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in the Special Civil Suit No. 270 of 2008. The said suit was filed before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Pune, for getting decree for damages, as according to the Appellant, his vehicle was subjected to damage because of the accident in question. It is the case of the Appellant that the vehicle in question was insured with the Respondent No. 1 i.e. Insurance Company and the Respondent No. 2 is the dealer of the said vehicle and in view of the loss sustained by the Appellant as it is the case of total loss, the Respondents should jointly pay the damages to the Appellant in quantum of the value of the car in quest...

Mr. Mukundrao Hari Kadam, Dist - Sindhudurga Vs. Mr. Umakant Sitaram S ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: None appeared for the respondent though he is duly served through notice sent under certificate and also by registered A.D. On the acknowledgment receipt there appears signature of Mr. Umakant Sitaram Sawant. It appears on the acknowledgement receipt that wrong date of receipt is mentioned i.e. as 02/08/2008. In fact, it should be 02/09/2008. That apart, we hold that it is a good service on the respondent. We heard Adv.Shri A.V. Patwardhan for the petitioner. In complaint no.36/2002 District Forum, Sindhudurga has passed some award against M/s. Silver Investment and Finance India Ltd., Kankavali. Award became final. It was not challenged and therefore, it was put in execution by filing Miscellaneous Application no.13/2002. At the time of execution of the application, it was mentioned in the title page that M/s. Silver Investment and Finance India Ltd., Kankavali should be served through Mr.Mukundrao Hari Kadam, Si...

Shri Dudhsakhar Sahakari Bank Ltd., Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member:- This appeal is directed against the dismissal order dated 25/05/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.240/2006. The appeal is filed by org.complainant since, the complaint stood dismissed. The complainant has obtained insurance policy bearing no. 2708001/02/7700002 with the opposite party for the period of 01/04/2002 to 31/03/2003 to cover the risk of theft, misappropriation, fire etc. Said policy covers risk of fire, misappropriation and burglary. The sum insured under the said policy was Rs.55 Lakhs. Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.32,330/- as a premium to the opposite party. According to complainant, in the month of September-2002 during Government audit, the complainant discovered misappropriation of funds by their employee Mr.Maruti Gurav. Therefore, complainant lodged claim with the opposite party-Bank with all necessary papers. However, opposite party repudiated the claim on relying upon the exclusion clause C. Complainant further stated t...

State Transport Co-op. Bank Ltd., Maharashtra State Transport Corp. Ca ...

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 order/award dated 15/07/1999 passed in consumer complaint no.151/1998, Ayub Akbar Mulani V/s. State Transport Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Mumbai by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara (Forum below in short). Undisputed facts are that the respondent/org.complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) is a shareholder of appellant/org.opp.party/Bank (hereinafter referred as bank). Complainant has taken loan from the bank, which he could not repay since his services were terminated by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, where he was working. Since, he was a defaulter, the amount payable to him by way of interest on his deposit and dividend on his share were appropriated by the bank towards is loan. It is the grievance of the complainant that though said amount were alleged to have been appropriated towards his loan account, the same were actually not given credit in his ...

Shri Ravindra Anandrao Sonavane Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., T ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member. This appeal is preferred by the Original Complainant challenging the impugned order/award dated 22nd August, 2005, dismissing the consumer complaint bearing No.376/2004, Shri Ravindra Anandrao Sonavane V/s. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The undisputed facts are that appellant/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) has taken an Insurance Policy, the copy of which is produced on record along with Annexure-A, titled as Liability Only Policy for Zone-B Private Car, covering the period from 17.12.2002 to 16.12.2003. Under said Policy charging extra premium, Personal Accident cover under section III for Owner-Driver was extended upto Rs.2,00,000/-. Complainant met with an accident on his way to Satara from Thane on Panvel - Pune Express Highway on 19.07.2003 and suffered personal injuries besides the damage to the Car other occupants of the car at the time of accident were his wife and son. Complainant h...

Lic of India Nashik City Branch No.2, Nashik and Another Vs. Shri Sanj ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal arises out of order/award dated 30/09/1998 passed in consumer complaint No.204/1995, Sanjay Sudhakar Poojary V/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., Nashik City Branch No.2, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Nashik (Forum below in short). Undisputed facts are that respondent/org. complainant-Sanjay Sudhakar Poojary (hereinafter referred as complainant) is covered by two Jeevan Mitra double cover endowment plan with profit (with accident benefit) insurance policies issued by appellant/org. O.P. (hereinafter referred as LIC). First policy bearing No.967081687 dated 28/03/1989 giving cover of Rs.30,000/- and another policy bearing No.967859123 dated 28/03/1994 giving additional cover of Rs.15,000/-. Complainant when was serving as Quality Controller in Classic Foods Ltd. Company, Satpur, Nashik, on 29/07/1994 his right hand palm crushed under the Crusher machine as a result of which his middle, ring a...

indusind Bank Ltd. Vs. Quality Fabricators and Erectors Through Its Pr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj543

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard finally.2. The petitioner has invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act) as the Respondents committed defaults in payment based upon loan agreement dated 15th October, 2007 of which the Arbitration clause as under:LAW, JURISDICTION, ARBITRATION(a) All disputes, differences and/or claim arising out of or touching upon this Agreement whether during its subsistence or thereafter shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to the sole Arbitration of an Arbitrator nominated by the lender. The award given by such an Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the Borrower and Coborrower to this agreement.(b) Dispute for the purpose of Arbitration includes default committed by the Borrower as per Clause 14 of this Agreement.It is a term of this agreement that in the event of such an Arbitrat...