Mumbai Court September 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.
Anil Bhalchandra Dighe Vs. M/S. Subham Commercial Enterprises Pvt Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: (1) Shri Anil Bhalchandra Dighe (hereinafter referred to as complainant) has filed a consumer complaint against M/s.Shubham Commercial Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. and its partners, Mr.laxmichand Chheda and Mr.Mukesh Bhai Chheda (hereinafter referred to as opponents) for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (2) The complaint was numbered as CC/10/107 and notices are issued to the opponents. (3) The facts in brief in the complaint can be summarized as :- The complainant had booked a shop No.3 in the construction to be carried out by the opponents on 11/07/1996 for a consideration of 3,43,000/-. Accordingly, an agreement was entered between the parties on 09/08/1996. As per the agreement, the possession of the shop was to be delivered on 14/06/1997. According to the complainant, so far he has made following payments:-Sr.No.Amount paidAmount paid on1.Rs. 17,150/-11/07/19962.Rs. 34,300/-17/12/19963.Rs. 34,300/-26/03...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vandana Wd/O Pradip Ramteke a ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
Oral Judgment: This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 23.8.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur in M.A.C.P. No.123/2001, whereby the claimants were awarded compensation of Rs.11,81,000/- on account of death of one Pradip Ramteke occurred in a motor vehicular accident on 7.8.2001 involving truck bearing No. MH-31-1809 insured with the appellant. While the deceased was riding bicycle he was knocked down by the truck and caused his death. He left behind him widow, three minor children and his mother. The learned Tribunal, after considering the income of the deceased worked out the loss of dependency at Rs.73,200/- p.a. and by applying multiplier of 16, having regard to the age of the deceased, awarded amount of Rs.11,81,000/-. 2] Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant raised only issue regarding quantum of compensation. According to him the widow of deceased is given compassionate employment by the employer i.e. Western Coalfields and in ...
V.M. Salgaoncar and Brother Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. the Deputy Colle ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. The above two appeals are taken up together for final disposal since both of them arise from the judgment and award dated 30/1/2006 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 71/2000. 2. The appellant in First Appeal No. 145/2006 was the applicant; the Dy. Collector and S.D.O., Quepem was respondent no. 1 and the Dy. Chief Executive Officer, Goa Industrial Development Corporation was respondent no. 2, in the said L.A.C. No. 71/2000. The parties shall be referred to in the manner as they appear in the cause title of the impugned Award. 3. Heard Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Narvenkar, learned Additional Government for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. H. D. Naik, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 4. Vide notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and published in the Official Gazette dated 5/10/1987, land was...
Mrs. Surekha Harishkumar Vaghela Vs. Dattatray Dhikoo Jadhav and Other ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member 1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 04/03/2010 passed by District Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint No.685/2007. 2. The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:- The org. complainant/appellant had booked a flat admeasuring 510 sq.ft. in the construction to be carried out by opponent No.2 and paid a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh on 26/10/2004 as booking amount. Accordingly, opponent No.1 had issued receipt for the payment. Thereafter, it is contention of the complainant that she requested the opponents to execute an agreement. Further, complainant/appellant contends that opponents agreed to sell her a flat in C wing. The complainant/appellant further contended that as per understanding between the parties, consideration towards flat was Rs. 1,500/- per sq.ft. However, opponents unilaterally increased the rate from Rs. 1,500/- per sq.ft. to Rs. 1,900/- per sq.ft. The complainant/appellant further contended that she had paid an amou...
Pundalik Narayan Xet Pednekar, (Since Deceased) Represented by His Leg ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-15-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. The above Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No. 397/88/Jr. 2. The plaintiffs had filed the said Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and/or any other persons acting on their behalf, from interfering in any manner with the suit access. 3. Case of the plaintiffs, in short, was as follows:- They are occupying a house as mundkars situated in the suit property bearing survey no. 229/25 of Calangute Village, for more than 50 years. The suit property is land locked and on the southern side of the same there is a property managed and looked after by the defendants, beyond which there exists a public road. The plaintiffs were always using an access having width of about 3 metres leading from the public road to the suit property, through this property of the defendants since the time they and their family members started occupying the house in the suit property. The said property of the defendants bears surve...
Shamba Sinai Budkule and Others Vs. Addl. Deputy Collector and Land Ac ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-15-2012
The appellants and the respondents (cross objectioners) shall be referred to in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of the Land Acquisition case No. 137/1998. 2. Heard Shri A. R. Kantak, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. 3. The above appeal and the cross objection are taken up together for final disposal since both arise from the Judgment and award dated 21/4/2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji (Reference Court, for short) in the said Land Acquisition Case No. 137/1998. 4. Vide notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (L.A. Act, for short), published in the official gazette dated 25/4/1994, land was acquired for the purpose of rectification of curve on Honda - Valpoi road in Sattari Taluka. This included a portion of land admeasuring 775 square metres from Survey no. 104/2 of Village Honda, belonging to the applic...
M/S. Dhariwal Industries Limited and Others Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2012
Oral Order: (Chief Justice) Rule, returnable in the first week of July 2013. Heard the learned counsel on the question of interim relief. The writ petitioners are companies engaged in the business of manufacture, supply and distribution of pan masala containing tobacco (known as gutka) and pan masala not containing tobacco. The petitioners claim to have licences and permissions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 which is now replaced by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the other legislations. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners in five petitions, the petitioners' factories are situate outside the State of Maharashtra. Statutory Regulations and Standing Order under challenge : 2. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the following provisions of two different Regulations under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (“the Food Safety Act “or FSS Act or Act of 2006”) as well as the statutory order dated 19 July 2012 ...
Thagendra Budhmagar Prisoner Vs. State (Through Public Prosecutor)
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-15-2012
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant/accused takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29.4.2009 passed by Special Judge, NDPS, Court, Mapusa in Special Criminal Case No.14/2008 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The period of detention undergone by the accused during the investigation and trial, has been ordered to be set off in terms of Section 428 of Cr. P.C. 2. Briefly the prosecution case is as under;- On 5.2.2008 at about 4.00p.m, PW8, PI Suraj Halarnkar attached to Anti Narcotic Cell, Police Station at Panaji received specific information that one Nepali aged about 25 to 30 years would be coming to Caranzalem beach near Martin's B...
M/S. Dhariwal Industries Limited and Others Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2012
Oral Order: (Chief Justice) Rule, returnable in the first week of July 2013. Heard the learned counsel on the question of interim relief. The writ petitioners are companies engaged in the business of manufacture, supply and distribution of pan masala containing tobacco (known as gutka) and pan masala not containing tobacco. The petitioners claim to have licences and permissions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 which is now replaced by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the other legislations. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners in five petitions, the petitioners' factories are situate outside the State of Maharashtra. Statutory Regulations and Standing Order under challenge : 2. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the following provisions of two different Regulations under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (the Food Safety Act or FSS Act or Act of 2006) as well as the statutory order dated 19 July 2012 of the Commissioner o...
Shamba Sinai Budkule and Others Vs. Addl. Deputy Collector and Land Ac ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-15-2012
The appellants and the respondents (cross objectioners) shall be referred to in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of the Land Acquisition case No. 137/1998. 2. Heard Shri A. R. Kantak, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. 3. The above appeal and the cross objection are taken up together for final disposal since both arise from the Judgment and award dated 21/4/2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji (Reference Court, for short) in the said Land Acquisition Case No. 137/1998. 4. Vide notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (L.A. Act, for short), published in the official gazette dated 25/4/1994, land was acquired for the purpose of rectification of curve on Honda Valpoi road in Sattari Taluka. This included a portion of land admeasuring 775 square metres from Survey no. 104/2 of Village Honda, belonging to the applicants. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »