Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Mr. P.N. Kashalkar Honble Presiding Judicial Member: (1) This appeal has been filed by the original Complainant whose complaint No.160/2003 was dismissed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Thane by judgement and order dated 30.10.2004. (2) The Appellant had filed consumer complaint in the District forum, Thane against the Respondent Builder Developer. According to Appellant he had booked tenement i.e. Shop No.A-7 in Yashoda Apartment, which has been constructed at Village Mira, District Thane and it has been developed by Opponent Nos.3 and 4. Complainant had paid total amount of `2,52,000/- for the said tenement to Opponent Nos.3 and 4. Later on Opponent Nos.3 and 4 assigned development rights in favour of Opponent Nos.1 and 2. But Opponents have not given possession to the Complainant even when he had paid full amount. Therefore, he had filed consumer complaint before Thane District Forum. Complainant had filed several police complaints for the fraud committed by all ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
JUDGMENT (Per A.M. Khanwilkar, J.):- 1) By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of the above mentioned matters together as the same involve common issues. 2) The first Writ Petition (Writ Petition No.1430 of 2011) is filed by the student who has passed her 12th Standard examination (Senior School Certificate 2011) from Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) with 88.4% marks, but has not succeeded in getting admission in Government Law College at Mumbai (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'GLC'). The grievance in this petition, as originally filed, was in respect of the method adopted by respondent- college of deducting 5% marks of candidates, who have passed the qualifying examination from the Board other than the Maharashtra Secondary School Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Maharashtra Board"), for preparation of merit list of students to be admitted in the First Year of Five years Law course. It is stated that the said petitioner was desirous of getting admission...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per P.B. Majmudar, J.) 1. Since it is agreed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that this appeal can be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself, we have heard the matter on merits at length forthwith. Hence admitted. Learned counsel and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respective parties appear and waive notice of admission. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 21st July, 2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 7389 of 2008 by which the writ petition filed by the present appellants has been dismissed by the learned single Judge. The said writ petition was filed by the appellants challenging an order passed by the Judge, Co- operative Court No. IV at Mumbai, dated 12th September, 2008 in C.C- IV/96/08 by which the Co-operative Court declined to grant any interim relief sought by the present appellants in the said dispute. The said order was challenged by the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
JUDGMENT: (Per R.G.Ketkar, J.) 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to forthwith grant to the petitioners Development Rights Certificate (for short D.R.C.) of total area of 31057.30 sq.meters for the construction and development of the amenity viz.Recreation Ground (for short R.G.) as set out in the petitioners applications dated 17.04.1998 (Exhibit 'K'), 03.11.2009 (Exhibit 'O') and 23.07.2010 (Exhibit 'Q'). 2. Petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No.2 has entered into an agreement to purchase part of the property owned by Petitioner No.1 and has for valuable consideration been irrevocably appointed as a constituted attorney of the Petitioner No.1. Respondent No.1 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short the 'Corporation'). Respondent No.2 is the Municipal Commissioner and the Respondent No.3 is Executive Engi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants. 2. Both the Appeals are filed by the original Defendants in S.C.Suit No.5237 of 2005 wherein the present respondents are the Plaintiffs. The dispute in both the Appeals is common. Temporary injunction has been granted in favour of the respondents in a Notice of Motion taken out by them and the Notice of Motion taken out by the present Appellants in their suit was dismissed. Therefore, the Appellants have preferred these two Appeals arising out of those Notices of Motion. 2. Admittedly, the Appellant no.1-Asian Development Corporation was the original owner of the land bearing CTS.No.1030 at Yari Road, Versova, Andheri (West) Mumbai and had made construction of a building on the said land in the year 1983 after having constructed the building. It sold away the flats in the said building. The purchasers formed Kavita Cooperative Housing society, which is the respondent No.1. 3. In 1994, for the fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Adv. Mr. K.J. Tandale has filed Vakalatnama for respondent no.2, and the same is taken on record. Moreover, respondent no.2 has filed affidavit in reply, and the same is taken on record. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. Learned APP Mr. D.R. Korde accepts notice upon Rule for respondent no.1, and learned Adv. Mr. K.J. Tandale accepts notice upon Rule for respondent no.2. 5. Present application has been filed by the applicant (original complainant), wife of respondent no.2, under Section 482 and 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying that Sessions Case No. 278/2010, pending before learned 6th District & Sessions Judge at Ahmednagar, pertaining to Crime No. I-230/2010, registered at Police Station, Parner (District : Ahmednagar), for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.):- 1. On 28 July 2008, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, invited applications for filling in 14 vacancies for the post of District Judge in the Judicial Service of the State of Maharashtra. The process of recruitment was governed by the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008. The High Court conducted a written examination, which was followed by an interview. A list of 14 candidates who were eligible for appointment was drawn in order of merit under Rule 6(3) (a). The Petitioner was placed at Serial No.10 of that list. The Petitioner submitted an attestation form and in column 11(a), he disclosed the fact that he had been prosecuted in Regular Criminal Case No. 218 of 1993, which had ended in acquittal on 20 November 2001. On 4 August 2010, a communication was addressed to the Petitioner requiring him to disclose the relevant papers of the Criminal case. The Petitioner responded by his reply dated 9 August 2010. On 23 August 2010, a Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
JUDGMENT: 1 The Appellant , a young doctor who became a victim of paraplegia as a result of injuries sustained in a motor accident has taken an exception to the judgment and award made by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which his claim 2 FA.717.99.doc for compensation has been partly allowed. The Appellant met with than accident on 15 December, 1993. He met with an accident when he was about 25 and half years old and by that time, he had acquired qualification of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine (B.A.M.S.). As a result of fracture to 12 thoracic vertibra , He suffered from complete paraplegia both motor and sensory below thoracic 12 with complete bladder and bowel involvement. The compensation granted by the Tribunal is Rs.8,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum against the claim of Rs.50,00,000/- made by him in the claim petition. 2 The accident occurred on 08:30 am on 5 December, 1993. At the time of accident, the Appellant was proceeding towar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. At the request of the learned Counsel for the applicants, leave to amend granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. Learned APP Mr. V.D. Rakh accepts notice upon Rule for respondent no.1, and learned Adv. Mr. V.D. Gunale accepts notice upon Rule for respondent no.2. 5. By the present application filed by the applicants (original accused) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have prayed that Charge Sheet No. 150/2010, dated 1-11-2010, submitted in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, in S.T.C. No. 1412/2010 (R.C.C. No. 431/2011), in respct of Crime No. 278/2010, dated 23-10-2010, registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, Latur (Taluka & District : Latur), for the offences punishable under Section 354, read with Section 34 of IPC, and also regarding offence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
JUDGMENT : (Per B.R.Gavai, J.) 1. Since the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 26th April 2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.20/2011 has disagreed with the view taken earlier by two Division Benches of this Court in Sherbahadur Akram Khan v. State of Maharashtra,2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1 and Madan Ramkisan Gangwani v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1447 that the term "other advantage" used in section 2(e) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ("MCOCA" for short) has to be read ejusdem generis with the words "for pecuniary benefits and undue economic", the matter is placed before us. 2. The question, therefore, that we are called upon to answer is "as to whether the term "other advantage" has to be read as ejusdem generis with the words "gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic advantage" or whether the said term "other advantage" is required to be given a wider meaning". 3. We have heard Mrs.A.S.Pai, learned Addl.P.P. and Mr.Amit Desai, l...
Tag this Judgment!