Mumbai Court September 2009 Judgments

Prakash Ratanlal @ Ratansa Kasari Vs. Bhika S/O Banda Dhage and

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj810

S.S. Shinde, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.12.2003 below Exh.25 in R.C.S. No. 370/2002 by which the application filed by the petitioner herein for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 proviso of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.2. The background facts of the case are as under:The petitioner herein filed R.C.S. No. 370 of 2002 on 29.10.2002 for issue of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from obstructing in his possession over agricultural land Gat No. 224 admeasuring 3 H. 73 R. situated at Siraswadi, taluka and District Jalna. In the said suit, the respondents filed their written statement on 9th December, 2002 and denied the claim of the petitioner herein.3. It is further case of the petitioner that during pendency of the suit and after going through the facts stated in the written statement and after perusing village record and consolidation record, the petitioner claims to have known that despite securing permiss...

Shree Krishna Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd., Nariman Point, Mumbai Vs. the C ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Complainant is present with his Advocate Mr.N.S. Parte h/f. Advocate Mr.S.B. Prabhawalkar. He wants to withdraw the complaint. Hence, the following order :- Order:- 1. Complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Prakash Ramkrishna Khadse, Vs. Manikrao Ramaji Sonwane and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4137

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. These two appeals can be disposed of by common judgment since they arise out of judgment in Special Civil Suit No. 857 of 2002. Appeal No. 732 of 2007 has been preferred by original defendants 6 and 7 while Appeal No. 690 of 2007 has been preferred by original defendants No. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.2. Defendants No. 1 to 3 are the owners of Survey No. 91 of village Warora District Nagpur. The defendants 1 to 3 entered into an agreement of sale of 2.80 hectares i. e. 7 acres of land with the plaintiff. Price of the said land was settled at Rs. 1,37,500/per acre. Thus the plaintiff was to pay total consideration of Rs. 9,62,500/. One of the conditions of the agreement of sale was that the plaintiff purchaser would pay Rs. 3,00,000/to the defendants 1 to 3 upon which the defendants would execute the sale deed in respect of 2 acres of land. At the time of execution of t...

Kamleshsingh Harnamsingh Chowhan Vs. Kishorsingh Gangasingh Chowhan an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj238

J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is preferred by the original defendant in T. & I.J. Petition No. 454 of 2004 being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion taken out by the petitioner therein for dismissal of his caveat dated 2nd May 2005.3. By the impugned order dated 29th February 2008, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the motion and made it absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a), which reads as under:that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to dismissnd the caveat dated May 2005 filed by the defendant in T.&. I.J. Petition No. 454 of 2004.The petitioner has sought a probate in respect of the Will dated 7th March 1992 and the Codicil dated 1st July 2003 executed by Gangasingh who died on 4th July 2003 leaving behind his wife Indumati and children.4. The petition for probate came to be filed in this Court by Kishoresingh Gangasingh Chowhan and Padma Singh. The appellant2nd defendant filed the caveat on ...

Karishma Consultant and Vs. Om Prakash Agarwal and

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj1009

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. The group of above noted applications filed by original accused persons for quashing of criminal complaint case Under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is being decided together in as much as identical questions of law and facts are involved therein:2. The applicants are the proprietary business concern and proprietor, respectively who had certain transactions with the respondent No. 1 (Complainant). Devang Desai was husband of the applicant No. 2 and was duly authorized to issue cheques for and on behalf of the applicants. There is no dispute about the fact that he issued five cheques in question towards discharge of financial liability which the applicants were supposed to discharge. There is also no dispute about the fact that the said five cheques were dishonoured by the UCO Bank when they were presented for encashment. The UCO Bank returned the cheques to the respondent No. 1 (Complainant) with intimation that the cheques could not be honoured due to ins...

Shri Rajendra Bapuso Pachore and Others Vs. Shri Sanjeev Shantinath Ar ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 29.04.2009 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 778/2007 between Sanjeev Shantinath Arwade and Others V/s. Adinath Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Sangli, by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli District. Alleging deficiency in service in return of the deposit amounts kept with Respondent No.5, Adinath Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit,, Sangli (Original Opposite Party No.1) by the Bank and its directors, a consumer complaint was filed which was decreed in favour of the Complainants and feeling aggrieved thereby original Opposite Party No.2 Rajendra and Original Opposite Party No.3 Sanjay, then Directors of the Bank preferred this appeal. We heard Advocate Mr. Chougule for the Appellants and Advocate Mr. Dhavate for the Respondents. Perused record. In the instant case, main contention of Appellant No.1 Rajendra (Opposite Party No.2) and Appellant No.2 Sanjay (Opposite P...

Torrent Power Ltd. Old Agra Road, Anjur Phata, Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane V ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Thane in consumer complaint No.569/2008 whereby an Interim Relief Application was allowed behind back of the O.P., O.P. has filed this Revision Petition challenging the said order. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- Complainant-Shri Mohammed Shahnawaz Alam, resident of Naigaum-II, Bhiwandi, District-Thane had filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of Torrent Power Ltd. Pending the said consumer complaint, complainant had filed an Interim Relief Application for restraining the O.P.-Company from disconnecting the power supply to his premises. The said application was allowed without issuing notice to the O.P. and Forum below passed the following order :- Statusquo till further orders. O.P. is directed to appear before the Forum below and file written statement on affidavit with doc...

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd., and Others Vs. Mr. ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. Being aggrieved by the judgement and award passed by Additional District Consumer Forum, Thane in consumer complaint no.140/2008, whereby while allowing complaint, Forum below directed Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCo.) to pay Rs.4000/- to the complainant by way of compensation for mental harassment and Rs.2000/- by way of cost of the proceedings and also directed to refund amount of Rs.17,690/- to the complainant taken for reconnection of the power supply, MSEDCo. has filed this appeal challenging the said order. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- 2. Complainant is working as Gazetted officer in Bhabha Automic Research Centre, Trombe. He is residing at A/06, Sunder Nagar Co-op. Housing Society, Sector 9, Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai. According to him, on 30/3/2007, at about 10.45 a.m. when complainant was attending his duty, MSEDCo. officials/ employees of MSEDCo. took away electri...

Mr. Balkrishna Pandurang Kadam Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11/9/2006 passed by District Consumer Forum, Thane dismissing complaint no.183/2004, original complainant has filed this appeal. 2. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- Complainant Balkrishna Pandurang Kadam is a resident of Kalyan(West), District Thane. He had filed consumer complaint against MSEB, Kalyan division alleging deficiency in service. He had also prayed that the bill given to him was exorbitant and should be quashed. He pleaded in his complaint that for the period covering 53 months, MSEB had given him bill of Rs.1,60,725.74. Since he had not paid the bill, his electric connection was disconnected and meter was taken away. Thereafter, he deposited Rs.40,000/- on 2/1/2004 and meter was reinstalled and power consumption was started. According to complainant at that time, officers of MSEB had assured that he would be sent bill as per meter reading, but ...

Branch Manager, Dena Bank, Mumbia Vs. Mr. Dhiren Khushaldas Mehta

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 09/07/2009 passed by District Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint no.251/2009. By passing the said order the Forum below was pleased to condone the delay after hearing both the parties. Aggrieved thereby, the org. opp. party has filed this appeal. We heard submission of Adv. Smt Geeta Suryavanshi for revisionist and Adv. Mr. D. Shukla @ Adv. Mr.V.R. Hirlekar for respondents. We are finding that this revision is directed simply against the condonation of delay application allowed by the Forum below after hearing both the parties and complaint was registered. The objection of opposite party summarily rejected. We make it very clear that it is the discretion of the Forum below to allow or to reject the condonation of delay application. According to complainant, he had prosecuted the remedies by approaching Banking Ombudsman, Consumer Education and Re...