Mumbai Court November 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Koregaon Branch Soham Bldg., Rahimatpu ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. This is an appeal filed by the insurance company against the order passed by the District Forum, Satara in Consumer Complaint No.137/98 decided on 02/11/1999. By allowing the complaint partly, the forum below directed the insurance company to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,75,000/ for the loss sustained by the complainant in the shop with interest thereon @ 12 p.a. from 01/01/1998 till realisation to complainant and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental torture and hardship and Rs.2,000/- towards costs. 2. The facts leading to the appeal may be stated as under: The proprietor, M/sParinita Garments filed his consumer complaint through MR.Vidhyachandra Bhandari, R/o.Bhavani Peth, Satara against United India Insurance Co.Ltd. According to the complainant, he is tenant on the entire ground floor of the building situated at 247, Bhavani Peth, Satara. He carried on garment business since last 35 years. The complainant had insured the furniture and readymade...
Chimanrao Morbaji Patil Vs. Smt. S.P.Surpam and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
1] Heard advocate Shri Sambre for the petitioner. 2] In this petition filed under article 226 of Constitution of India two challenges are placed before this court. First challenge is to order of reversion dated 24.1.1995 and second challenge is to a subsequent order dated 22.5.1995 by which juniors to petitioner have been promoted as Regional Managers. 3] Shri Sambre has invited our attention to seniority list prepared for the cadre of Field Officers/ Assistant Managers in the year 1983 and thereafter in the year 1985 to show that name of petitioner appears at serial no.1 in said list and other persons who are promoted on 22.5.1995 are placed below him. His contention is, if reply of respondent no.2 is perused, it would reveal that promotion is to be given on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and as there is no dispute of seniority of petitioner, he ought to have been promoted. He points out that in said reply respondent no.2 has come up with defence that confidential reports for the ye...
Sunil Gulabrao Satav Vs. Balu Karbhari Kutal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
1. Challenge in this first appeal is to the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar in Misc.C.A.No.66/2010 by judgment and order dated 02/07/2011, by which the application filed by the first respondent for the custody of minor child by name Sanket Sunil Satav, the son of the appellant u/s. 7 and 17 of The Guardian and Wards Act of 1956 was allowed. 2. Admit. By consent, heard finally at this stage. 3. Few facts, which gave rise to file the present appeal can be summarized as follows : Respondent no.1 herein, who is the grand father of minor Sanket Sunil Satav, the son of the present appellant, has applied u/s. 7 and 17 of The Guardians and Wards Act of 1956 to appoint him as a guardian of the minor. It is alleged in the said application that daughter of respondent no.1 by name Rekha was married with the appellant herein. Minor Sanket and daughter Shweta were borne out of the said wedlock. There are allegations of harassment at the hands of appellant. It is alleged that...
Sudarshan Jagannath Singh and Another Vs. M/S Sainath Enterprises
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
ORDER P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member: (1)This complaint isfiled jointly by Shri Sudarshan Jagannath Singh and his wife Smt.Veena Sudarshan Singh.Both resident of Powai Vihar Complex, Building No.4, B-103/104, A.S. Marg, Powai, Mumbai 400 076 against M/s.Sainath Enterprise of Mulund (West), Mumbai.According to Complainants Opponent was building residential flat premises.Hence, they approached Opponent and at his instance booked two different flats.The Opponent prepared two separate agreements, one for the Complainant No.1 and another for the Complainant No.2.Complainants agreed to purchase Flat Nos.103-B and 104-B respectively in Building No.4to be constructed in Powai Vihar Complex.Both the agreements were entered into by the Complainants with the Opponent on 12.04.1993.However through there were two agreements and the flat numbered as two flats, the premises covered under both the agreements consisted of only one single flat admeasuring 800 and 500 sq.ft. respectively.In a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›