Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... reference will have to be made to section-126 of the electricity act, 2003 as it was standing at the relevant time. present sub-section (5) of section-126 of the said act is an amended section in the year 2007 and, therefore, present sub-section (5) of section-126 of the said act cannot be taken into consideration. we have to take into ..... 24/8/2006; (f) that a notice under section-171 of the electricity act, 2003 was not given by the opponent to the complainant prior to carrying out disconnection of electricity supply to his flat; (g) that the complainant sold the said flat in the month of april-2007 to a third party. however, in order to enable the third party ..... consideration sub-section (5) of section-126 of the said act, which was in existence and applicable prior to the year .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... into this definition. we may accept such argument but there is a problem for us i.e. words housing construction have been included in this definition by the amendment act which is into force by 18.6.1993. earlier these words are not there. now thereby so far as construction activity is concerned, legislature has not taken word ..... which is made available to potential [ users and includes, but not limited to the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction] entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service ..... is to be sold in the market is required to be stored in the godown and for the said purpose, initially the complainant has purchased on 28.12.2007 patra shed godown no.b/70 on the ground floor, admeasuring 14404.00 sq.ft. equivalent to 1338.94 sq.mtrs. the said sale deed was duly .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... complainant has constructed the flats. the flats, as we have stated in the earlier portion of order are in the possession of the complainant. complainant is paying the electricity charges of the same. the obligation to obtain the occupancy certificate from the corporation is admittedly of the complainant and therefore, we do not see that it is ..... by their notice itself that the flats were constructed in the year 1981 and they were/are in possession of the said flats and were/are paying the electricity charges. no interim injunctions were granted though there were suits against complainants and admittedly no court has granted any interim relief in favour of the society till today ..... year 1981 to 1983, the complaint is hopelessly barred. section 24(a) was not on statute book in the year 1986 when act was made. it was also not part of act when act was brought into force in 1987. it was amended in 1993 and said section was inserted. prior to said section general provisions of indian limitation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... 2003. appellant cannot demand arrears of electricity bill for more than two years. section 56(2) is reproduced as under:- notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being ..... to complainant, he had paid the bill of the o.p. upto 2003 for the said electric connection. it is alleged by the complainant that the o.ps have failed to furnish any bill to the complainant from 2003-2007 i.e. for nearly 4 years. complainant further stated that the employees of the o. ..... 2007 appellant furnished the bill of rs.10,684/- to the respondent. on 27/1/2008 meter of the respondent was found burnt. therefore, respondent approached appellant for installing new meter. however, appellant demanded rs.43,000/- being the arrears from 2001-2008 nearly about six years and 4 months. it is illegal and arbitrary as per section 56(2) of amended electricity act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... three years to demand the possession. said agreement was treated as cancelled long back before its alleged registration. the builder by its reply dated 20/1/2007 rightly informed to the complainants that the agreement was treated as cancelled. the complainants were asked to take back the amount of consideration paid. the builder, ..... was returned to the complainants for presenting it before an appropriate district forum. accordingly, the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the district forum 13/4/2007. sum and substance of the complaint was that the complainants had booked a flat bearing no.701, admeasuring 632 sq. ft. in area situated on ..... order achieved finality under section-24 of the consumer protection act, 1986. on perusal of the impugned order, it does appear to us that said order has been passed after taking into consideration the amended prayers of the complainants in the complaint. actually, if the amended prayers of the complainants are taken into consideration it is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... industries pvt. ltd. and anr (appeal no.599/2002 decided on 20/04/2010), the division bench of bombay high court held that intention behind the amendment was to remove impediments in the construction of the additional buildings, if the total layout allows construction of more buildings, subject to compliance with the building rules or ..... sq.ft. and t.d.r. of the entire plot i.e. 19220 sq.ft. for consideration and further under the deed of confirmation dated 29/06/2007 which was registered with the sub-registrar of assurances. this development agreement was entered into between these two appellants and accordingly, now m/s.ahuja properties pvt. ltd ..... undisturbed. honble high court relied upon the provisions of section 7-a of the maharashtra ownership flats (regulations of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) act, 1963 and so, applied ruling of the supreme court given in the case of jayantilal, mentioned supra. thus, there are many rulings which clearly mentioned that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... less price than mrp rs.25/-. learned author dr.v.k. agarwal, supra, at page 249 further observed that the new definition given in clause (nnn) by amendment act, 2002 has further widened the scope of the concept of restrictive trade practice. the legislative intention is clear that it expands the meaning of restrictive trade practice by extending ..... the matter of the federation of hotels and restaurants association of india and ors. v/s. union of india and ors., air 2007 delhi 137 and particularly, to the passing reference made referring to the act. the relevant observations in para 15 of the said judgement reads as under:- 15.this discussion would not be complete without some ..... the mrp have been held to violate the statute. i had renotified these petitions for arguments on 2/3/2007. mr.bhasin, mr.sachtey and mr.midha have, however, stated that for the decision in these petitions the cp act would not have to be considered. prima-facie, however, it appears to me that learned counsel for the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... separate legal entity vis- -vis it is not made clear that the proprietor/chairman of lodha group of companies is a legal person or not. however, as per the amendment carried out, character of original opponent no.1 is since then changed and in the present form, opponent no.1 is described as the proprietor/chairman, m/s.lodha estate ..... the first meeting of the society, supra. no evidence is led to establish the same as per provisions of section 13(4) of the act. affidavit of mr.pralhad j. prasad (prajapati) dated 10/04/2007 filed on behalf of complainant would not serve said purpose. further, referring to the letter dated 01/10/2005 of the builder-company to the ..... of objections taken by opponent, which is then opponent no.1, namely, the proprietor/chairman, lodha group of companies, the cause title of the complaint got amended to the present form (as mentioned in this order). said amendment was carried out on 07/01/2011 as per order dated 14/12/2010. it may be at the outset mentioned that said .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... each of the parties within two calendar months after having been required so to do in writing by the other party in accordance with the provisions of the arbitration act 1940 as amended from time to time and for the time being in force in case either party shall refuse or failed to appoint arbitrator within two calendar months after receipt of ..... court 2049 and himachal pradesh state forest co.ltd. (2009) 2 scc 252. however, said decision proceeds on the assumption based upon the statement made at bar that the amendment to section 28 was repelled. but such is not the case. this was further considered by the punjab and haryana high court in the matter of sunil goyal v/s ..... reference on the issue of entrustment is rightly made to the decision of the apex court in the case of national insurance co.ltd. v/s. ishar das madan lal (2007) 4 scc 105. 14. on behalf of the insurance company further reference is made to condition no.19 of the policy, which reads as under:- if any difference shall .....
Tag this Judgment!