Mumbai Court June 2012 Judgments
Shri M.B. Usgaonkar and Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Oral Judgment: Both the above appeals are taken up together for hearing and final disposal as both the appeals challenge the judgment passed by the learned Reference Court dated 30.06.2007. The parties shall be referred to in the manner they so appear in the cause title of the impugned judgment. 2. Pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( herein after referred to as 'the said Act”) dated 27.11.1997, different portions of the land belonging to the applicant came to be acquired for improvement of a curve at Dhavshirem, in Village Panchayat of Usgao-Ganjem in Ponda Taluka. The areas acquired belonging to the applicant in respect of property surveyed under No.60/7 is 60 square metres; survey No. 202/4 is 1400 square metrs; survey No.203/1, is 135 square metres; survey No. 203/2 is 2000 square metres; survey No.204/1 is 1295 square metres and survey No.214/1 is 145 square metres. By an award passed under Section 11 of the said Act dated 10.01.20...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Secretary, Government of Goa Secretariat and Others Vs. Shri ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Oral Judgment: None for the Appellants in First Appeal no. 220 of 2007. Hence, the said First Appeal no. 220/2007 stands dismissed for default. 2. Heard Shri Vivek Rodrigues, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants in First Appeal no. 90 of 2007. 3. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment dated 28.12.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Civil Suit No. 281/2004, whereby the counter claim filed by the Appellants came to be dismissed. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Respondents filed a suit praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs: “a) For declaration that the entries existing in the column “Name of the Occupant” of the survey records of the suit property bearing survey no. 11/1 of Village Cormonem of Sanguem taluka except the name of Plaintiff no. 1 are erroneous and requires to be deleted and striked out. b) For directions to the Defendants to delete and strike out the name of Government from the...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Maria Zita Afonso Daughter of Late Xavier and Another Vs. the Map ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri M.B. Da Costa, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Shri P. Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.19 and 20 and Mrs. A. Agni, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.21 to 23. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. The notice issued to the respondents was for disposal of the above petition finally at the stage of admission. Hence, with the consent of the learned Counsel the petition was heard finally. 3. The above petition challenges the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Panaji dated 19/07/2011 whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioners to amend the plaint came to be rejected. 4. The suit filed by the petitioner is inter alia for seeking a declaration that the mortgage deed dated 5/09/1995 and all other subsequent and incidental proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri. NitI ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Mr. Justice S. B. Mhase, President Adv. Sanjay Mhatre is present on behalf of the Appellant. He files his Vakalatnama on behalf of the Appellant on obtaining No Objection from earlier advocate for the Appellant. Vakalatnama filed by Adv. Sanjay Mhatre is taken on the record. Respondent is absent today. Heard Adv. Sanjay Mhatre on behalf of the Appellant. [2] This appeal filed by the Appellant/Opponent No.1 takes an exception to an order dated 26/10/1999 passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No.1269 of 1997. By this order, the Appellant/Opponent No.1, namely Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., was directed to pay to the Respondent No.1/Complainant, namely Mr. Nitin Visanji Mepani an amount of `1,52,850/- together with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. as from 1/1/1998 besides an amount of `750/- towards costs of complaint, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of order. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied w...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sabitri @ Savitri Agarwal Vs. Tata Memorial Hospital Dr. Ernest B ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Honble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member This is a consumer complaint filed by Smt. Sabtri @ Savitri Agarwal, a resident of ChhattisgarhState. Complaint has been filed against the Opponent No.1, TataMemorialHospital and the Opponent No.2, Dr. Sudeep Gupta also working with the Opponent No.1, TataMemorialHospital. According to the Complainant, she is a housewife aged 59 years old. The Opponent No.1, TataMemorialHospital is a leading cancer treatment institute in India and is under the control of Atomic Energy Administration of Government of India. The Opponent No.2, Dr. Sudeep Gupta is a leading doctor of gastro-intestinal ailments and he is an Associate Professor in the Department of Oncology with the Opponent No.1, Hospital. [2] According to the Complainant, on 14/3/2007 at her residence she suffered blood vomiting and she was immediately rushed to a nearby hospital known as SiddharthHospital where Dr. G. S. Agarwal gave her preliminary treatment and advised her to underg...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pushpa Dinesh Tiwari Vs. Dr. S.M.Shah Holy Spirit Hospital and An ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Honble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member This is a consumer complaint filed by Smt. Pushpa Dinesh Tiwari alleging medical negligence on the part of the Opponent No.1, namely Dr. S. M. Shah and the Opponent No.2, namely The Chairman, HolySpiritHospital. According to the Complainant, her husband, Late Mr. Dinesh Premnarayan Tiwari was admitted in the Opponent No.2 Hospital on 29/12/1997 for liver problem. Opponent No.1, Dr. S. M. Shah was the doctor giving treatment to her husband and the Complainant alleges that on 2/1/1998 the Opponent No.1, Dr. S. M. Shah had given one injection after operating her husband and thereafter her husband started to shout and within three minutes the Complainants husband died because of negligence on the part of the Opponent No.1 Doctor. Alongwith the complaint, the Complainant has produced on the record death certificate of her husband issued by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The Complainant pleaded that her deceased husband, Mr. D...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagat Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Neeta Malhotra Through He ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Honble Mr. Justice S. B. Mhase, President Heard Adv. R. B. Jain proxy advocate for Legal Juris on behalf of the Appellant and Adv. Nagaraj Hoskeri on behalf of the Respondent. [2] This appeal filed by the Appellant/Opponent No.1 takes an exception to an order dated 30/6/2009 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No.194 of 2008. By this order the Appellant/Opponent No.1 was directed to execute the conveyance deed in respect of Shop No.25 in favour of the Respondent/Complainant and to hand-over possession of the shop to the Respondent/Complainant. Appellant/Opponent No.1 was further directed to pay to the Respondent/Complainant an amount of `45,000/- by way of compensation towards mental agony and inconvenience caused to the Respondent/Complainant besides costs of `5,000/-. Said order was directed to be complied with within a period of 45 days. If the amount was not paid within the stipulated period of 45 days the Appellant/Oppon...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmendra Kamlakar Tangadi Vs. Commissioner of Police and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the Respondents waive notice. Heard finally forthwith, by consent. 2) This habeas corpus Petition is filed by the brother-in-law of the detenu Shri. Janardan @ Janyadada Chintaman Bhoir, who has been detained under the order of the Commissioner of Police, Thane, dated 10th February, 2012, passed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “MPDA Act”). This order is challenged in the present Petition. 3) The detenu was taken into custody and was served with copy of the order and the grounds of detention, directing his detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, in future. He has been detained in Yerwada Prison, Pune. The grounds of the detention, refer to the background necessi...
Tag this Judgment!Chetan Haridas Parekh and Another Vs. Navnit Haridas Parekh and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
1. The dispute is between siblings. This petition is filed for appointment of a guardian or next friend of Respondent No.1 to prosecute the suit and for not permitting him to withdraw the suit. 2. There have been several litigations between the parties. One Harish Parekh, the father of the parties, died leaving behind essentially one flat in Matru Chhaya, Marine Drive, Mumbai-20. Respondent No.1 lives there. His brother and three other sisters have been married and have settled elsewhere in India and abroad. His son is serving in Abudhabi, UAE. His daughter is married. He is 75 years of age. At the time of the death of the father all sibilings were minors except himself. The father died leaving behind his widow and five children including Respondent No.1. The mother of the parties got the tenancy rights of the suit flat transferred to the name of the Respondent No.1 after the death of the father. He continued as tenant. He has been made an owner of the suit flat along with other tenant...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another Vs. Parbatabai Alias Parvatabai ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act by original respondent no.1 assailing judgment and award dated 28.03.1994 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur in M.A.C.P.No.44/1988 whereby the applicant nos. 1 to 7respondents herein were granted compensation of Rs.2,73,000/- on account of death of Satish Ramteke in motor vehicular accident occurred on 17.02.1988 in Lalpeth Colliery, Chandrapur. 2. The learned tribunal, after considering the income and age of the deceased, assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.14,400/- per annum and by adopting multiplier of 20 arrived at figure of Rs.2,88,000/- and directed the respondents to pay the said amount inclusive of no fault liability of Rs.15,000/-. 3. Mr. Khanzode, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is exorbitant. According to him, by choosing wrong multiplier of 20, irrespective of age of the claimants, the learned tribu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »