Mumbai Court May 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.
Saroj Anil Bajaj Vs. Hsbc Bank Oman S.A.O.G.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2014
Naredra Kawde, Member: [1] Complainant booked a residential flat with Keshavdeo Poddar and Co. for total consideration of Rs.7,99,350/- and relied on the allotment letter dated 01/12/1997 issued by the said builder/developer company. Amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash was paid as earnest money. Further amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was to be paid on 31/01/1998 and on failure to do so allotment was liable to be cancelled with forfeiture of Rs.50,000/- paid as earnest money. Amount of Rs.1,84,000/- was to be credited to the account of the complainant in the Oman International Bank S.A.O.G. located at Nariman Point, Mumbai (hereinafter to be referred as Opponent Bank). Said amount was transferred by Telegraphic Transfer (T.T.) from Oman International Bank S.A.O.G., Muttarah, Muscat. This amount was transferred by Mr.Mohamed Ashfaque from his account at Oman International Bank S.A.O.G., Muttarah, Muscat to the account of the complainant in the same Bank branch located at Mumbai. The amount was transf...
M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd. Vs. Digambar B. Dhande
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-2014
Narendra Kawde, Presiding Member: 1. Aggrieved with the order dated 08/01/2014 passed in consumer complaint no.CC/13/100 (in the matter of Mr.Digambar B.Dhande v/s. M/s.Eureka Forbes Ltd.) by Central Mumbai District Forum, the present appellants/original opponents have preferred this appeal challenging the said order. 2. District Forum while holding deficiency of service against the appellants allowed the consumer complaint and directed to refund an amount of Rs.8,690/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e.05/06/2013. District Forum also ordered to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- for mental agony. Aggrieved thereby, original opponents/present appellants have filed this appeal on the ground that the impugned order was made ex-parte as at no point of time copy of the complaint and other compilation thereto were served on the opponents. Since the appellants had no opportunity to appear and contest the claim of the respondent/org.complainant, the ...
Sujit Shivshankar Singh Vs. M/S. Sonalika International Cars and Motor ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: [1] Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District has decided the consumer complaint bearing no.189/2010 (Mr.Sujit shivshankar Singh vs. M/s.Sonalika International Cars and Motors Ltd. and ors.) by an order dated 27/09/2013 thereby dismissing the complaint filed by the present appellant/original complainant [hereinafter to be referred to as complainant against the original opponents/present respondents [hereinafter to be referred to as opponents]. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has challenged the impugned order of the District Forum by filing this appeal. Appellant has stated that the order passed by the learned District Forum is bad in law and against the provisions of natural justice. Further, it is averred that learned District Forum failed to appreciate that the problem with exhaust pipe assembly, head light lamp, power window, switch gear, diesel guard in the car are not manufacturing defects, though the complainant plead...
M/S. Gupta Coal India Private Limited Vs. M/S. Swiss Marine Services S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-2014
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Parties have placed on record all relevant documents which are not in dispute. Hence it would not be necessary to call for record and proceedings. Hence record and proceedings dispensed with. 2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur on 07/01/2014 in Special Civil Suit No.694/2012 whereby he has dismissed the said civil suit for want of jurisdiction, the plaintiff therein has preferred the present appeal. 3. The appellant is a registered Company dealing in the business of coal. It also imports coal. During off shore acquisition of coal it requires to engage the services of the companies like the present respondent who make available the vessels for transportation of the coal. Sometimes in the month of September, 2011 the appellant and the respondent started negotiations through a broker by name M/s Saigal Sea Trade. Considerable correspondenc...
Dr. Ravindra Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Health D ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
1. The present Petition has been filed to quash complaint filed by Appropriate Authority (hereafter referred as "complainant") under the provisions of Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereafter referred as "Act") and the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereafter referred as "Rules"). 2. The Petition is Admitted and has been heard finally. Learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents submitted elaborate arguments. With this matter some other similar matters were also argued and Counsel for Petitioners adopted arguments of each other on law points to request for quashment of Criminal Trials against accused. 3. Case of the Petitioner is that he is running Durga Hospital in Amalner and has purchased sonography machine. According to him, he never conducted any sex determination tests and he maintains regular records. He was...
Balaji and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners in these writ petitions, the learned Additional Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for other respondents, jointly submit that, since the points/issues raised in all these petitions are similar, all these petitions can be heard together and disposed of by common judgment and order. Learned counsel for the petitioners in respective petitions submit that, writ petition No. 7106 of 2013 and writ petition No. 7660 of 2013 should be considered as lead petitions and the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioners in those writ petitions would be adopted by other respective counsel appearing in respective petitions. In the light of above, this Court has proceeded to hear all these petitions together, and same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. As already observed herein before, all petitions raises...
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Milagres Francisco Palha and O ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-09-2014
1. Heard Mr. Netrawalkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Naik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 5, Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6 and Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 7 and 8. 2. On 24/04/2014, the parties agreed that the matter be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Hence, the matter was heard finally. 3. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 21/06/2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Panaji ('Tribunal', for short), in Claim Petition No. 54/2009. 4. The appellant, which was the insurer of Tempo bearing No. GA-01/T-9484 was the respondent no.2; respondents no. 1 to 5 were the claimants; respondent no. 6, the driver and owner of said Tempo bearing No. GA-01/T-9484 was respondent no. 1 whereas respondents no. 7 and 8, respectively the driver and owner of Kadamba Bus No. GA-01/X-0152, were the...
Hariram and Another Vs. Uddal and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-09-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This second appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 23.7.2013, passed by learned Principal District Judge, Gondia, in Regular Civil Appeal No.160 of 2012, which was partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and present appellants/defendants were restrained from obstructing the way of present respondents/plaintiffs in between their houses and school building, as per entry recorded in wajibul-arz Exh.88. The appellants/defendants were directed to remove the obstruction, if any, on the suit way. i.e. as per entry recorded in Exh.88. The first appeal arose from judgment and decree dated 30.7.2012, passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Tirora, in Regular Civil Suit No.3 of 2006. The suit was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are, thus: The respondents/plaintiffs had instituted the suit on the ground that present respondents/plaintiffs are the owners of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.351, ad...
M/S. Gupta Coal India Private Limited Vs. M/S. Swiss Marine Services S ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-09-2014
P.R. Bora, J.1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Parties have placed on record all relevant documents which are not in dispute. Hence it would not be necessary to call for record and proceedings. Hence record and proceedings dispensed with.2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur on 07/01/2014 in Special Civil Suit No.694/2012 whereby he has dismissed the said civil suit for want of jurisdiction, the plaintiff therein has preferred the present appeal.3. The appellant is a registered Company dealing in the business of coal. It also imports coal. During off shore acquisition of coal it requires to engage the services of the companies like the present respondent who make available the vessels for transportation of the coal. Sometimes in the month of September, 2011 the appellant and the respondent started negotiations through a broker by name M/s Saigal Sea Trade. Considerable correspondence t...
Kamani Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhuwaneshwar Refineries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-2014
1. The Plaintiff is an existing Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, engaged inter alia in the business of manufacturing and marketing edible oils of all kinds. The Plaintiff has through its predecessor KAMANI OILS been using the trade mark KAMANI in respect of edible oils, vegetable oils and fats and other like goods since the last nearly five decades. 2. The Defendant is an existing Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, engaged inter alia in the business of manufacturing and marketing refined edible oil. 3. The Plaintiff has filed the present Suit against the Defendant for a perpetual order and injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing the registered trade mark of the Plaintiff 'RISO', and also from passing off their goods/products as those of the Plaintiff by using the mark 'RISOLITE', or any other mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs registered mark. By the present Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff has sought a temporary injunction against ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »