Mumbai Court June 2012 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.
Rameshwar Nanakram Prajapal Vs. Mrs. Sundrabai Keru Ghadage
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-18-2012
Oral Judgment: This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 11th December, 1991 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon in Civil Appeal No. 304 of 1984. 2. The petitioner herein is the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 64 of 1981 filed by the respondent herein in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon for possession of the suit premises under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (For short, "Bombay Rent Act"). 3. The plaintiff i.e. respondent herein filed civil suit with the contention that, she is the owner of the premises bearing Municipal House No. 267A (CTS No. 2504) situated at Jalgaon and the defendant - petitioner herein, as tenant, is occupying one room of 10’ x 10’ of the said building on the monthly rent of Rs.35/-. The respondent herein i.e. original plaintiff stated in the said suit that, she is residing in tenanted premises and there are six persons in the fam...
Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. M/S.Sanmit International ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2012
Oral Judgment: (Chief Justice): This appeal is directed against the order dated February 10, 2012 of the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition Lodging No.110 of 2012 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arbitration Act”). 2. The subject matter of the above Arbitration Petition centers around the right of appellant-Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking, to invoke the bank guarantee dated 8 November 2011 for a sum of US Dollars 67,030. 3. By ad-interim order dated 23 January 2012 the learned Single Judge had permitted the present appellant to invoke the bank guarantee issued by the respondent No.2 bank (Standard Chartered Bank), but the appellant was injuncted from receiving any amounts pursuant to the invocation. In other words the amount was required to be deposited with respondent No.2 bank itself. The injunction was passed in view of the undertaking given by the petition...
Sarjerao Janardhan Hande and Others Vs. Maharashtra State Co-operative ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally by consent. The Petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed on an Application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 thereby rejected their claim of overtime wages. 2 Both the Petitioners were working as drivers with the Respondent. Petitioner No.1 took Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and retired on 31.03.2008. Petitioner No.2 retired on superannuation on 30.04.2008. NO dispute was raised at that time with regard to the overtime wages. The Common Application was filed on 18.11.2009 i.e. after getting all the benefits of retirement/VRS. 3 The Respondent resisted their Application on all counts and even denied the validity of so-called documents filed and the averments so raised. The Petitioners, therefore, filed an Application for production of documents referring to the dates and vehicle numbers which they claim to have worked and the relevant overtime bills. The Respondent again by its reply dated 24.08.2010 resisted the Appl...
M/S Ravalnath Builders Vs. Mrs. Sebastiana Escolastica Beatriz Nunes M ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-18-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A. R. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri M. B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by the consent of the learned Counsels. 3. Shri J. A. Lobo, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. 4. After hearing the matter for some time, the following order is passed by consent. It is submitted by Shri Kantak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Shri Ramani, who was appointed as a Commissioner has disclosed his inability to go on with the commission. ORDER (i) Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate present in Court is appointed as a Commissioner to record the evidence of the respondent at her residence. (ii) The Commissioner's fees shall be borne by the petitioner. (iii) Before proceeding with the examination of the respondent, the Head of Department of E.N.T., Goa Medical College, Dr. C. P. Das shall remain present before the recording of the said evidence and in case...
Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway Vs. Sou. Anagha Prasanna W ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2012
(Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Honble Member) (1) This appeal has been directed against the order dated 12/01/2005 passed in Consumer Complaint No.246/2002 (Sou.Anagha Prasanna Valimbe Vs. Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Solapur) by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur, thereby directing the appellant, Railway Authorities to pay an amount of Rs. 1,34,500/- with 9% p.a. interest to the original complainant/present respondent with Rs. 500/- as costs of litigation. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the original opponent/appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that the complainant/respondent while traveling by railway from Solapur to Pune on 22/05/1998 did not hand over the luggage and obtain the receipt and therefore Railway Administration cannot be held responsible for alleged theft of ornaments reported to have taken place while traveling and no deficiency or negligence in service can be attributed to the appellant Railway Administrati...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. M/S. Kewal Book Industries
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2012
Shri Narendra Kawde Honble Member: (1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd July, 2004 in Consumer Complaint No.75/2003 (Kewal Book Industries V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.), passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Thane, thereby partly allowing the consumer complaint preferred by the present Respondent who was the original Complainant, directed Appellant (the original Opponent) to pay the insurance claim of Rs.5,07,338/- within a period of three months, failing which interest @18% per annum would be payable till realization on the amount of claim. (2) Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order the Appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal on the ground that the claim of the Complainant was highly exaggerated and assessment of compensation cannot be termed as deficiency in service, the Ld.District Forum has misinterpreted the report of the surveyor and awarded the claim amount by way of impugned order. (3) This is an old appeal...
The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India and Others Vs. Mrs. Gee ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2012
(Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member) (1) This is an appeal filed by the original opponent, State Bank of India against the judgement dated 19/11/2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigad (forum below in short) in Consumer Complaint No.73/2007 by allowing the complaint partly, the forum below directed appellant/original opponent to cancel bankers lien kept on Fixed Deposit Receipt of the complainant and to pay `5,000/- to her by way of mental agony and cost. As such, the opponent bank has come up in appeal. (2) The facts in brief can be stated as below:- The complainant was an employee of the appellant/opponent bank. She had kept certain amounts in 3 Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDR in short) with State Bank of India, Alibaug Branch, Alibaug, Dist.Raigad. The fixed deposit amounts were to mature on 06/06/2011, 08/08/2007 and 21/07/2011. The deposit receipt No.1 was for Rs.2,51,857/-having receipt No. 0129209401306. It was kept on 06/06/2006 and...
Silver Park 'A' Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd Vs. Altaf Abdul Malik Pirani
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2012
Per Shri Narendra Kawde Honble Member: (1) This appeal is preferred against the order dated 18th November, 2004 in Consumer Complaint No.101/2004 (Mr.Altap Abudlmalik Pirani V/s. Silver Park A Co.op.Hsg. Soc. Ltd.) passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Thane (the District Forum in short), thereby partly allowing the consumer complaint filed by the present Respondent who was the Complainant before the Ld.District Forum. Directions were issued to the Appellant Co-operative Housing Society to issue original share certificate to the Complainant within three months from the date of receipt of the order. Aggrieved with this impugned order the Appellant Cooperative Society has filed this appeal on the ground that the Appellant Society had already issued the share certificate to the Complainant/Respondent and if the original share certificate has been misplaced or not traceable in that event the Respondent can demand duplicate share certificate to the Appellant society a...
The Chairman/ Managing Director Versus P.G. Karandikar
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2012
Per Honble Mr.Justice S.B. Mhase, President Heard Ms.Sheetal Sampat-Advocate for the revisionist. This is a revision petition challenging interim order passed on 23/04/2012 in consumer complaint no.45/2012. We need not enter into the controversy as to what is the complaint in order to consider the points raised in this revision petition. Suffice it to say that the respondent has filed a consumer complaint no.45/2012 against the revision petitioner/ builder/ developer. On 23/04/2012 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai passed an order to the following effect:- Complainant personally present. Opponent called absent. Notice of the complaint application to the opponent was sent by RPAD/ courier. Said notice has been served on opponent and the acknowledgement is on record. In spite of notice being served, opponents are absent and, therefore, matter to proceed ex-parte as against the opponent. Complainant to file affidavit in evidence by next date i.e.24/05/2012. Thus, th...
The Manager, Landt Finance Ltd Vs. Baban Tatoba More
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2012
(Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member) (1) This is an appeal filed by the original opponent against the award passed by District Forum, Kolhapur (hereinafter to be referred to be as forum below) in Consumer Complaint No.15/2011. The complaint was filed by the respondent herein against the appellant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/original opponent. The complainant had purchased a tractor by taking vehicle loan of Rs. 3,10,400/- from the appellant, L and T Finance Ltd. The respondent committed default in paying EMI. The appellant was pleased to take possession of the vehicle, as per terms of loan agreement. (2) Complaint was contested by the appellant/original opponent by filing written version. After filing the written version, the forum below adjourned the matter for hearing and after hearing, the forum below passed judgment and award and directed to the appellant to pay Rs. 2,42,600/- to the complainant along with interest @10 p.a. f...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »