Mumbai Court January 2014 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.
Arvind Ramchandra Pawar Vs. the Manager
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: Applicant/appellant has filed an application for placing on record an agreement dated 05/02/2004 which could not be placed by the appellant on record of the forum since it was not available. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. Application is therefore allowed. This appeal is directed against an order dated 06/09/2007 passed by the District Forum at Satara whereby forum dismissed appellants complaint no.210/2006. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.Appellant had borrowed a certain sum of money for purchase of a motor truck from the respondent company. Since the appellant defaulted in repayment of the loan as per schedule, Company seems to have taken possession of the vehicle. There is no dispute that there was default in repayment of loan and 9 cheques of the appellant were bounced. Contention of the appellant is that the loan installment itself was fixed incorrectly adding the finance cha...
Armstrong World Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Oral Order: Narendra Kawde, Member: [1] We have heard Adv. Sagar Sandip Ghogare instructed by M/s. Majumdar and Partners on behalf of the Complainant and Adv. Smt. Sneha S. Dwivedi on behalf of the Opponents. We have also perused the record. [2] Complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent “ National Insurance Company Ltd., for not settling various insurance claims and has claimed from the Opponent Insurance Company an amount of Rs.26,16,850/- together with interest thereon @ 7.75% besides costs of the complaint. [3] The Complainant has been availing from the Opponent Insurance Company Transit Insurance Policies and other Marine Insurance Policies since the past ten years for covering the risks arising from any damage caused to the goods and materials imported by the Complainant in India from other countries and the goods and materials distributed from the Complainants warehouse situated at Bhiwandi to any other location in India...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another Vs. Prakash Co-ope ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The Appellants original Respondents, a public statutory body constituted under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, MMC Act) are entitled to take action of eviction and/or evacuation and/or demolition in respect of the occupation/construction of the premises, authorized and/or unauthorized, in the city of Bombay, have challenged order dated 10 April 2013 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai thereby granted interim injunction till the final disposal of the Suit in terms of prayer (a), part of which is as under: a) That during the pendency and final hearing of the Suit, the Defendants, their agents, their servants, their representatives, their constituents and any persons claiming through the Defendants be permanently restrained by an Order of temporary injunction from proposing to demolish/evict/dispossess the said tenants i.e. the tenants as referred in Exh. B to the plaint from the suit premise...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. ImmauddIn Abdul Kasim Pathan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1 It appears that that while admitting this appeal, this Court had kept the appeal, as against the original accused no.3, in dormant file as the original accused no.3 could not be served with the notice of admission of the appeal. This appeal insofar as it questions the acquittal of the original accused nos.1 and 2 stood dismissed by the order of this Court. 2 Since this appeal of 1993 has remained pending since 1993 for want of service to respondent no.3, we asked the learned APP to examine the merits of the appeal and accordingly to argue the matter on merits. 3 This appeal has been filed by the appellant-state questioning the correctness of the judgment of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik dated 13 November 1992 acquitting the respondents accused nos.1,2 and 3 for an offences punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 4 It appears that the Trial Court had acquitted accused as the prosecutio...
Dinesh Waghmare and Another Vs. Gulshan Bahu Uddeshiya and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Admit. 2. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. With their consent, we dispose of this appeal finally. 3. The only submission made before us by the learned A.G.P. appearing for the appellants is that in this case the Court was not required to hold that the appellants are guilty of civil contempt. There was no deliberate or intentional act and mere delay in disposing of the matter, within the time frame stipulated by this Court, does not necessarily mean civil contempt. Something more is required to be established and proved and therefore held before such a finding is rendered. Further, in criticizing the conduct of the appellants, the Court was not required to use harsh language and observe that the attitude of the appellants was revengeful or in any way victimizing the original petitioner before the Court. 4. With the assistance of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, we have perused the impugned order and...
Savio Torcato Pereira and Another Vs. State of Goa by the Secretary (R ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. R.S. Dalvi, J.) Rule. Made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioners are the owners of the property under survey no.85/3 of Village Utorda, Salcete Goa. A part of the land on the southern side of the property of the petitioners is being acquired. It consists of a road, four metres in width. Earlier the proposal was to acquire a six metres width road. In a fresh affidavit, the respondents desired to acquire only four metre wide road because that road joins the another footpath which is two metres wide on the southern side of the road. There is a nalla on the east of the road proposed to be acquired. Hence, a two metres wide culvert had been constructed. The acquisition of the further road would necessitate the construction of another culvert or broaden the existing culvert. 3. The road from the petitioners' property continues south and later towards the west to join the main road on the west. There are a number of houses in that patch. The construction of such road w...
Pidilite Industries Limited Vs. Jubilant Agri and Consumer Products Li ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
1. The above Suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant is infringing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff, infringing the copyrights of the Plaintiff and committing the tort of passing off its goods as the goods of the Plaintiff in the circumstances set out in the Plaint. 2. By the above Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff has sought ad-interim/ interim reliefs restraining the Defendant from infringing the trademarks and copyrights of the Plaintiff and/or committing the act of passing off its goods as that of the Plaintiff. 3. By an ex parte order dated 29th August,2013, ad-interim injunction in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the Notice of Motion have been granted in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant which prayers are reproduced hereunder: œ(a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendants, its Directors, proprietors, partners, owners, servants, subordinates, representatives, stockists...
Union of India, Through General Manager Vs. Shri Sravan Kumar Saoji Go ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.7.2002 passed in Case No.71/OA-I/RCT/NGP/2001 allowing the claim of the respondent for damages. 2. The appellant was entrusted with a consignment by one M/s. Arjun Raut from Howrah for its delivery to the respondent at Nagpur. The consignment consisted of one basket containing Pomfret fish and it was packed along with ice as preservative. It was agreed by the appellant to deliver it to the respondent in good condition or pay damages, in case of loss, reduction in value or destruction of the contents of the consignment. Railway receipt No.863660 dated 23.7.1998 was issued and copy of the same was given to the respondent. It was to be delivered to the respondent on 24.7.1998 at Nagpur. When the respondent went to the Parcel Office of the appellant at Nagpur on 24.7.1998, he was not given the delivery of consignment. On 25.7.1998 also, initially no delivery of consignment was given. Later on, on the same day, it was reve...
Devdas Pandurang Lubade and Others Vs. Dharma Nana Madane and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
R.C. Chavan “ President: In the course of arguments it was pointed out that the original Complainants/Appellants in Appeal no.A/11/250 were the office bearers. Appellant in Appeal No.173/2011 was also an office bearer of the Society who was impleaded in his personal capacity. Society itself has not been impleaded as a party. The Ld.Counsel for the original complainants on the instructions from his client submits that, it would be necessary to make Society as a party and if such opportunity is given, then his clients will take appropriate steps. Ld.Counsel for the Appellant in Appeal No.376/2011 states that the occupants had taken possession even before the occupation certificate was issued at their own risk. The Society had passed resolution, whereby the Society had taken over the responsibility of installing the lift and the amount paid to the builder was accordingly adjusted and this fact is required to be considered by the District Forum. In view of this, we feel it appro...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Khushboo Enterprises
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: 1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 12/07/2013 passed by District Forum, South Mumbai in consumer complaint No.90/2008. 2. The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under :- "The complainant-company had availed insurance policy named as œStandard Fire and Special Perils Policy? from the opponent and the policy period is from 22/06/2005 to 21/06/2006. During the policy period on 06/02/2006 there was a fire at Sai Laxmi Storage Corporation and due to fire; the goods of the complainant-company got destroyed. The complainant informed the incident to the opponent. The complainant lodged a claim of Rs.9,76,400/-. Opponent/Insurance Company had appointed Surveyor for assessment of loss. Opponent/Insurance Company appointed œAshok Chopra and Co.? as Surveyor. The complainant-company provided necessary information to enable the Surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor had submitted his final report on 26/04/2006 to the opponent...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »