Mumbai Court September 2009 Judgments

Smt. Pramila Vinayak Paranjape and Others Vs. Mrs. Nirmala Arvind Sane ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member. Both these appeals are heard together and decided by this common judgment since they arise out of the same order/award and involve common questions on law and facts. Both these appeals arise out of order/award dated 16.09.2008/23.09.2008, passed by District Forum, Pune in Complainant between, Smt. Nirmala Arvind Sane and Ors. V/s. Vishwas Vinayak Paranjape, since deceased by his legal heirs, Smt. Pramila Vinayak Paranjape and 4 Ors. and Opposite Party No.6 Resilient Cosmeceuticals P. Ltd. From the certified copy of the impugned order, it appears that two members out of three members Bench have signed the said order/award on 16.09.2008 and thereafter third Member signed the said order on 23.09.2008 and as such impugned order, effectively, is of dated 23.09.2008, since mere signing by two members out of three members would not complete impugned order. Original Opposite Party No.6, Appellant in First Appeal No. 1459/2008 and Re...

Shri P.L. Kudva, Represented by Shri P. Damodar Kudva, Mangalore Vs. t ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This is an appeal filed by original complainant, whose complaint was dismissed by District Forum, Mumbai Suburban by order dated 02/11/2007. The complainant had fled consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of LIC. One Late Shri P.Ramchandra Kudva had taken 9 insurance policies from LIC. In one of the policies, the complainant was nominated as nominee. It was policy bearing no.914993616. Said Shri P.D.Kudva died on 26/06/2002. Opponent asked nominee to furnish all the details of the policy. According to complainant, opponent has sanctioned claim in respect of other policies within three days. But he was not informed about the policies paid by LIC to other nominees. The complainant pleaded that with malafide arbitrary action settlement of claim in respect of policy no.914993616 was delayed for 292 days. Opponent paid interest @ 8.25% p.a. on 12/07/2003, but the complainant claimed 18% interest and o...

Runja Khandu Gaware, Decd. (Thru His Legal Heirs Bajirao Runja Gaware ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4079; 2009(6)MhLj644

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. These two Second Appeals have been heard together since the facts involved in the Appeals are the same. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were before the trial court i.e. the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pimpalgaon Baswant in Regular Civil Suit No. 3 of 1978. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for a perpetual injunction contending that there was an agreement of sale dated 10th April, 1974 in her favour executed by the defendant. The suit was filed on 21st January, 1978. The plaintiff then sought an amendment and prayed that the suit be decreed for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 10th April, 1974. The amendment was allowed and the plaint was amended on 25th January, 1984. The suit property which the plaintiff claims is Gat No. 445 admeasuring 1 Hector, 98-R and which the plaintiff says was sold to her by the defendant for Rs. 6,000/-. 3. The defendant filed his written statement and also a counter claim for possessi...

Ganesh Benzoplast Limited a Company Incorporated Under the Companies A ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj386

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent, we have heard the learned Senior Advocates appearing for the respective parties.2. By this application, the applicant prays:15(A) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to modify the Order dated 24th June, 2009, and that the Applicant should be exempted from having to pay the Second Installment of Rs. 2.5 Crores to the Respondent.(B) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this Application, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to exempt the Applicant from having to pay the Second Installment of Rs. 2.5 Crores to the Respondent.On behalf of the respondent, reply has been filed which is on record (page 35). The reply has been sworn in by Smt. Hemangi Arsekar.3. The applicant/plaintiff has filed Special Civil Suit No. 5/2009 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vascoda-Gama on February 9, 2009. The respondent in this application was the defendant in the suit. The parties, shall be referred to as per their status in the suit i.e. as plaintiff...

The Raj Bahadur Motilal Mills Ltd. Vs. Pune Zilla Parishad

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj111

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The substantial question of law involved in the present Second Appeal is whether a suit for eviction of a monthly tenant can be filed by the local authority in a Civil Court or whether it should be filed before the Small Causes Court in view of the provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.2. The undisputed facts in the present case are as follows:3. Shop Nos. 3 to 7 situated on C.T.S. Nos. 434-A, 435, and 436 in Somwar Peth, Pune were obtained on rent by the appellants on 22nd January, 1959 from the District Local Board, Pune. After the enactment of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Act, the suit premises vested in the Pune Zilla Parishad i.e. the respondents herein. In 1984, a notice was issued by the respondents terminating the tenancy of the appellants. The second notice was issued on 29th June, 1985 by the respondents. Thereafter the respondents filed a suit for eviction against the appellants on 22nd October, 1985 under the Transfer of Property A...

Smt. Savita Sitaram Pawar Vs. the State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj59

R.M. Savant, J.1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2. The above Writ Petitions involve a common question and are therefore, dealt with together and disposed of. In Writ Petition Nos. 6427 of 2009, 6429 of 2009 to 6434 of 2009, 6436 of 2009 and 6437 of 2009, Rule has already been issued. However, since the issue involved in the aforesaid Writ Petitions and in Writ Petition No. 6913 of 2009 and the other companion matters is identical, we thought it proper to place the said Writ Petitions in which Rule has been issued also for hearing with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.3. All the petitioners above named have approached this Court against the direction of the respondent No. 2 'Zilla Parishad calling upon the petitioners to submit their Caste Certificates by 27th July, 2009, so that the same can be referred to the concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee for consideration of the validation of the Caste claim, as each of the petitioner...

Popcorn Entertainment Corporation, Through Is Proprietor Shri Nilesh G ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR52

V.C. Daga, J.1. The first and second petitioners 'M/s. Popcorn Entertainment in W.P. No. 9467/2008 ('M/s. Popcorn' for short) and M/s. Platinum Entertainment in W.P. No. 9468/2008 ('M/s. Platinum' for short) were allotted plot of lands by respondent No. 1 - The City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO for short) for erecting entertainment complex in Navi Mumbai. Whereas third petitioner -M/s. Platinum Square Trust in W.P. No. 3423/2006 ('Platinum Square' for short) was allotted plot of land for establishment of country club. The said allotments were cancelled by CIDCO. The petitioners have challenged the said orders of cancellation through these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are almost similar. The questions of law raised are identical. Rival submissions made are common to all petitions. Common written submissions are circulated by the parties. However, the petitions filed by M/s. Popcorn and M/s. P...

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai Vs. Burdwan Textiles and a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(170)LC1(Bombay)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The suit has been instituted by the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai for the recovery of preconfiscation charges. The First Defendants were sued as importers / consignees / owners of the consignment on which Port Trust charges became payable. The Second Defendant has been sued as agent of a vessel, M.S. Mckinney Maersk.2. The case of the Plaintiff is that two consignments said to contain 60 cartons and 20 cartons of Polyester Fabric were discharged by the vessel on to the docks at Mumbai. The consignments were manifested under items 76 and 77 of Import General Manifest No. 1700 dated 15th November, 1984. A copy of the Import General Manifest was furnished by the Second Defendant to the Plaintiff on behalf of the vessel. The general landing date and the last free day of the cargo fell on 15th November, 1984 and 19th November, 1984 respectively. The goods were confiscated on 1st December, 1986 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 111(d) of the Customs ...

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Mrs.Vinaya Ashok Patil ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This revision petition is filed by M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the interim order passed by District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban, whereby in the pending complaint no.386/2008, interim application was allowed on 30/1/2009 and Insurance company was directed to retain terms and conditions mentioned in the Mediclaim policy for the subsequent renewal of policies to be issued to the complainant. Forum below also directed O.P.no.1/Insurance Company to maintain the same methods awarding benefits adopted in the mediclaim policy issued during the year 2006 in the renewed policies issued subsequently. Aggrieved by this order, Insurance Company filed this revision seeking quashing of the said order. 2. According to Mr.A.S.Vidyarthi-Advocate, complainant had purchased Mediclaim insurance policy (under Hospitalization and Domiciliary Hospitalization Benefit policy) since January 2006. Initially, it was a policy issued f...