Mumbai Court October 2013 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.
Chief Postmaster General (Pli) and Others Vs. Mrs. Geeta Ramchandra Ka ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2013
Oral Order: R. C. Chavan, President: [1] This appeal is directed against the order dated 06/09/2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli in Consumer Complaint No.349 of 2000, Smt. Geeta Ramchandra Karvekar Vs. Chief Post-Master, General (P.L.I.) And Others, directing the Appellants herein/original Opponents to pay to the Respondent/Complainant (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the Postal Endowment Assurance Policy taken out by the Complainants husband. [2] The Complainants husband was serving with the Central Industrial Security Force. He had taken out a policy of insurance from the Appellants on 09/07/1997. The Complainants husband died on 24/06/1998 after having paid all the premia from time to time. The Complainant then made a claim for payment of amount under the insurance policy. However, the Appellants refused to pay the amounts under the policy and, therefore, the Complainant was require...
Mrs. Meena S. Hirani Vs. Lovely Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2013
Oral Order: Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: [1] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 05/04/2013 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bandra in Consumer Complaint No.400 of 2012, Mrs. Meena S. Hirani Vs. Lovely Hotels Pvt. Ltd. By the impugned order the complaint filed by the Appellant/original Complainant was dismissed on the ground that she was not a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:- [2] The Appellant/Complainant (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) had booked a shop in the year 2009 in the construction to be carried out by the Respondent/Opponent (hereinafter referred to as the Opponent for the sake of brevity). It is the case of the Complainant that she has paid nearly 95% amount of the agreed consideration. However, she has as yet not received the possession. [3] The District Forum after hearing the Complainant on th...
Shekhar S/O. Govindrao Kinkhede, Since Deceased Through L.Rs. and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-17-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This revision is challenging the order dated 24th January, 2012 passed on Exh.87 in Special Civil Suit No.583 of 1997 rejecting the plea of defendant nos.1 to 4 that the plaint should be rejected for being barred by law as provided in Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. This suit was originally filed in the year 1997 by Smt. Manjudevi alone. In the plaint, she stated that she and her husband Vinodkumar had agreed to purchase certain immovable property situated at Nagpur from defendant nos.1 to 4 and an agreement was scribed in 1996, in which both Manjudevi and Vinodkumar were parties. Certain amount as earnest was also given. Subsequently, they learnt that defendant nos. 1 to 4 have agreed to sell the said property to defendant nos. 5 to 8 and therefore, the cause of action for filing the suit for specific performance arose. But, surprisingly, though the right to sue o...
Malhar S/O Ganpat Bokephod and Others Vs. Shivaji S/O Vishwanath Pawal
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-17-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. 4. By consent of both the parties, matter is taken on board for final disposal at the stage of admission. 5. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners original defendants challenge the order dated 26th August, 2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashti below Exhibit-42 appointing a Court Commissioner to measure land bearing Survey No. 220 from western side 7 acres of land. 6. Few facts are as under:- Respondent original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 387 of 2012 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashti for injunction restraining the respondent from disturbing his possession in respect of the suit property i.e. 1 Hector 18 Are from Survey No. 220 as described in paragraph-1 of the plaint. In that suit, respondent preferred application below Exhibit-42 dated 25th April, 2013 for appointment of Court Commissioner...
Mohan S/O Premnath Kothimbire Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-17-2013
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Heard. Rule was issued in this matter on 20.4.2007. The applicant, Advocate Mohan Premnath Kothimbire, is practicing in Additional Sessions Court, Omerga. He has been arrayed as accused No.7 in R.C.C. No.11/2005, pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga arising out of Crime registered as F.I.R. No.79/2003, dated 3.4.2003, at Police Station, Omerga. Charge sheet filed is under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short). 2. Case of the prosecution as appearing from the F.I.R. read with the charge sheet is as under:- (a) One Rajendra Tulshiram Thakur along with villagers from Gunjoti Sajja, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad had on 6.3.2003, met Talathi of Gunjoti Sajja Shri Jayant Shripati Gaikwad (accused No.5), for taking copies of 7/12 extracts. It transpired that, accused No.1 Bhausaheb Baburao Ingole, accused No.2 Vyankat Shankar Giri and accused No.3 Sanjay Sidram Deshmukh had gone to the Talath...
indraprastha Co Op Hsg So Ltd Pune Represented Through Its Secretary A ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2013
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: Both these appeals challenge the order dated 30/01/2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no.43/2002. Facts in brief leading to these appeals can be summarized as under:- Initially, one Dara Dinshaw Avari along with other 13 members have filed a consumer complaint against the original opponent nos.1 to 5 alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent nos.1 to 5. The deficiencies were stated as not providing the overhead water tank with pump and motor, common electricity meter and water connection, the society office, internal roads and the street lights, MSEB meters, cables and the transformers. Similarly, common septic tanks and the common sewage lines were also not provided. It is also contended by the original complainants that the opponent no.5, which is a Co-operative society was the owner of the property bearing Survey No.215, Hissa no.1, Survey no.218, 219 and 277, Hissa No.1 situated at Hadaps...
T.K. Kuttapan, Executive Engineer (Q.S. and C) Vs. the Union of India, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2013
Mrs. Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). 1. Heard Shri S.P.Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. No one appears for the respondents. 2. The applicant has challenged the communication dated 17.06.2013 addressed to the Commander Works Engineer, Military Engineering Services, Kalyan Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur written on behalf of Chief Engineer, PBSO. It was intimated by this letter that the request of the applicant for retention of accommodation on education ground for second academic year was not considered as there was no provision under SRO 308 for retention of accommodation for second academic year for Civilian Officers. It was further mentioned in the said letter that the applicant would be treated as an unauthorized occupant with effect from 16th April 2013. By the second impugned letter dated 18.06.2013, the Station Headquarters, Pune was requested to initiate suitable action against the applicant as per procedure. 3. Shri Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the applicant ...
AshvIn Shah and Others Vs. Rsn Balaji Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2013
PC : 1. The appeal arises from an order of the learned Single Judge dated 1 April 2013 on a Chamber Summons which was taken out by the Appellants for setting aside an order of the Taxing Master in regard to the payment of court fees on the counter claim. The First Respondent has filed a suit based on an agreement to assign dated 30 December 2010. According to the First Respondent, there were seven co-owners of the property having a one third share in the property. Out of them, only four of the executants of the deed of assignment appeared before the sub-registrar to admit the execution of the document. The three Appellants did not appear before the sub-registrar. Hence, the First Respondent, inter alia, sought a decree against the Appellants to admit the execution of the agreement to assign. The Appellants filed a counter claim in the suit. By the counter claim, the Appellants seek a declaration that the agreement to assign dated 31 December 2010 is void and unenforceable; a decree dir...
Manohar Sahadev Shinde Vs. Yashwant Sahadev Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard finally. 2 The present Appeal from Order is filed by the Appellant-original Plaintiff, as the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai by order dated 10 September 2009, returned the plaint to the plaintiff, to file the same before the proper Court. This is on a foundation of preliminary issue that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and/or try the Suit. 3 Admittedly, the Plaintiff is residing in the premises owned by the father along with his brother. The Suit is filed to evict the Defendant-brother. The Civil Court is the only remedy/forum to take such action. The Plaintiff prayed to declare that the Defendant has no right, title or interest in the property and also prayed for mandatory inunction for eviction, apart from the permanent injunction from disturbing the Plaintiff's possession, occupation and enjoyment of the Suit property. These prayers and the contents/averments made in the Suit, in my view, also show that there exists no relationship o...
Laxmi Pat Surana Vs. Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2013
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Admit. Learned counsel for the Respondents waive service. The appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of the learned counsel. 2. The appeal arises from a judgment and order of the learned Company Judge dated 1 March 2013 by which the Company Court sanctioned a scheme of arrangement under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The scheme of arrangement contemplates that a division of Pantaloon Retail India Limited shall stand transferred to Peter England Fashions and Retail Limited. In consideration of the demerger, the shareholders of the demerged company are to be allotted shares on a proportionate basis in the resulting company. 3. The scheme of arrangement was sanctioned by the learned Company Judge on 1 March 2013. A copy of the order of the Company Court was received on 26 March 2013. Form-21 was filed with the Registrar of Companies on 8 April 2013. The equity shares of the resulting company were liste...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »