Mumbai Court September 2009 Judgments

Shri Anthony John Menino Rodrigues Vs. Shri Gregory Bruno Fernandes an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj959

A.H. Joshi, J.1. The calendar of election was as follows:i) Last date and time for On 11.4.2007, from 11.00 hrs receiving the nomination to 14.00 hrs. papers.ii) Date and time for scrutiny On 12.4.2007, from 11.00 hrs of the nomination papers. till 18.00 hrs and on 13.4.2007, from 11.00 hrs till scrutiny is over.iii) Date and time of withdrawal On 14.4.2007 from 10.00 of nomination papers. Hrs to 14.00 hrs.iv) Date and time of Poll On 5.5.2007, from 08.00 hrs till 17.00 hrs.v) Date and time of counting On 6.5.2007.2. The Petitioner, the respondent No. 1, Smt. Belvy Auxilo Noronha, Shri Filastro Teodorio Cardozo and Shri Teodomiro Paul Mendonca were the candidates in the fray for the seat of member of Panchayat of Village Varca for ward No. III.3. Nomination of the respondent No. 1 was orally objected by the petitioner.The objection can be described as follows:Candidate namely Gregory Bruno Fernandes is in arrears of dues payable to the Panchayat towards contract of collection of market...

Rangnath Kisan Gadekar and anr. Vs. Vaishali Chaturbhuj Shinde and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR100

Shinde S.S., J.1. This writ petition is directed against the final judgment and order dated 30.3.1994 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Bhoom, in file No. 1993/ROR/727, the order dated 23.3.1996 by the Additional Collector, Osmanabad in Case No. RTS/69/93/94 and the order dated 16.12.1998 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Au-rangabad Division, Aurangabad in Case No. 96/ReV/R/143.2. The background facts of the case as under:The subject-matter of this writ petition is a mutation entry No. 976 by Tahsildar on 8.7.1991 in respect of land Gat No. 650 admeasuring 1-H 41-R situated at village Mankeshwar in Osmanabad district. The said land was originally owned by Ganpati Shinde and after his death, it was by inheritance came to his two sons viz. Baban and Chaturbhuj, now both the sons are dead. In the year 1988, an oral partition between deceased Baban and Chaturbhuj, in which Narayan sought 3-H 2-R portion from land Gat No. 650 was allotted to the share of Chaturbhuj and remaining south...

Vikrant Happy Homes Pvt. Ltd., Thru Its Managing Director, Near Hotel ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member First Appeal No.1958/1999 is filed by Vikrant Happy Homes Pvt. Ltd./org. O.P. against judgement/award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Nashik in consumer complaint No.407/1998 decided on 16/09/1999 whereby while allowing the complaint partly, Forum below has directed org. O.P. to pay Rs.20,000/- towards physical and mental harassment and also to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant by way of cost. Feeling dissatisfied with the award passed by the Forum below, org. complainant has preferred First Appeal No.1968/1999. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- Complainant had filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service against Shri Gangadhar Karbhari Jadhav, Managing Director of Vikrant Happy Home Pvt. Ltd., who pleaded that he was to purchase a plot plus constructed bungalow for Rs.1,50,000/-. The bungalow was to be constructed on load bearing technique. O.P. had told the complainant t...

Sou.Balmani Vasudeo Naral Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner, Railway Lin ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member None is present for the appellant. This is an appeal filed by the original complainant, whose complaint has been dismissed on merits by District Consumer Forum, Solapur by its impugned judgement/award passed on 27/11/2008 in consumer complaint no.186/2008. In filing appeal, there is delay of 3 months and 3 days and the complainant has filed misc.application no.397/2009 seeking condonation of delay. In the affidavit filed with condonation of delay application, applicant is silent as to on which date he received copy of the judgement or order. No date is mentioned. Date column is kept blank and simply it is mentioned that there is delay of 3 months and 3 days. He says that due to age factor and illness, he could not file the appeal within time. Even in para 2 of the affidavit of delay of months and days is kept blank. First of all such type of affidavit having blanks cannot be acted upon to condone the delay. When com...

Manoj Prabhakar Lohar Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai Aurangabad

Reported in: 2009(3)BCR(Cri)258; 2009ALLMR(CRI)2883; 2010CriLJ205(NOC)

V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.1. These are applications filed U/s 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking directions that in the event of arrest, the applicants may be released on bail.2. The incident giving rise to the applications is said to have occurred between 30.6.2009 and 1.7.2009. It appears that one Purshottam Patel, a contractor, had lodged a report against Dr.Uttam Dhana Mahajan, pertaining to alleged defrauding in respect of certain amounts which were payable to him. It was alleged by said complainant Purshottam that he was duped and cheated by said Dr. Uttam Mahajan. In pursuance to the said complaint, applicant No.1 Manoj, who was then the Additional Superintendent of Police at Chalisgaon, called Dr. Uttam Mahajan, in his office around 10/10-30 a.m. on 30.6.2009. The applicant Manoj deputed PSI Nimbalkar to call said Dr. Uttam Mahajan. Allegedly, Dr. Uttam Mahajan is member of Congress Party and was about to proceed to attend some rally or function at Nasik along with some other co-workers. He was...

Sharad Haribhai Chavan Vs. Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Satara a ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint no.120/2008 by District Forum, Satara on 10/12/2008, original complainant has filed this appeal challenging the said dismissal. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: Complainant filed consumer complaint against opposite party no.1/Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Satara and opposite party no.2/United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Pune. According to complainant, he had purchased petroleum tanker bearing no.MH 11 M 4333 and had take loan for the same from Tata Motors Finance Ltd./Opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.1 insured the vehicle with opposite party no.2/ United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in 2007. The complainant had paid off the loan to the opposite party no.1 and in 2007 he himself purchased the insurance policy for his vehicle from opposite party no.2. At that time he had shown the insured declared value of the vehicle at Rs.4,50,000. However, in the year 2007 the opposite...

Waman S/O Manjiram Hebare Vs. Ramesh S/O Manjiram Hebare

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4368

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This appeal challenges the order passed on 25.9.2008 by the learned District Judge-II, Jalna below application Exhibit 6 in Regular Civil Suit No. 2 of 1980. By the impugned order, the defendants were restrained from using trade mark 'Hebare' of the Respondent.2. Briefly stated, the respondent is the original plaintiff who filed application Exhibit 6 before the trial court for injunction regarding infringement and passing off. The respondent is the proprietor of 'M/s Hebare and Sons' and his firm is in the business of production of sewing machines under the trade name and trade mark 'Hebare'. He has been doing business for the last 20 years and has earned goodwill and reputation in the market. The sewing machines are being sold in Districts such as Jalna, Beed, Latur and other part of the Marathwada region. Respondent plaintiff is the real brother of the appellant defendant. It is the case of the respondent plaintiff that appellant was not associated with the business...

The Akkalkot Municipal Through Its Chief Executive Officer Vs. Shri Va ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR40; 2009(6)MhLj311

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. Both the appeals have been filed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Solapur, in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. The Appellant in Appeal No. 894 of 1996 is the acquiring body and the Appellants in First Appeal No. 1330 of 1996 are the claimants. The Appellants in First Appeal No. 894 of 1996 have challenged the judgment contending that the compensation granted by the trial Court is too high. The Appellants in First Appeal No. 1330 of 1996 have challenged the judgment on the ground that the trial court ought to have granted their entire claim and not only a part thereof. 2. The Acquiring Body and the State Government, apart from contesting the merits of the claim have also contended that the reference was barred by the law of limitation. It is necessary therefore, to set out the facts leading to the reference. It is also necessary for us to set out certain facts which transpired thereafter as the same are also relevant ...

Dr. Anil Bhaskar Ghagare Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Thane

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Appellant/Dr.Anil Bhaskar Ghagare in person. None is present for respondent. Appellant had filed consumer complaint No.174/2008 in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Thane against the National Insurance Company for the claim, which was repudiated by the Insurance Company. While filing complaint, it appears from the judgement delivered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Thane that complainant had not signed the complaint and on that ground alone complaint came to be dismissed by the Forum below. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been filed by the complainant himself. On hearing the appellant/org. complainant extensively, we are finding that the order passed by the Forum below cannot be said to be erroneous or bad in law. If the complainant preferred to file complaint without signing, the fate of the complaint is sealed on the date on which it filed. As per sealed fate, complaint has b...

Sau.Banubee Issak Beg, Ponda, Goa Vs. Shri Lenny Bastanev Farnandis, S ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Smt. S.P. Lale Honble Member:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 29/02/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.49/2006, whereby the Forum below directed the opposite party to pay Rs.88,980/- to the complainant and transfer the Tata Sumo car in the name of complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Forum below further directed to opposite party to pay Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- towards the cost to the complainant. Being disaggrieved by the said order, the opposite party has filed this appeal. We heard Adv. Mr. Prabhu for the appellant and respondent, who is present in person. There is delay of 220 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay. The inordinate delay is explained in para 4 of the application for condonation of delay. It is stated in para 4 of the application that the applicant received the copy of the judgement on 13th May, 2008 at his Goa address. However, applicants ...