Mumbai Court July 2002 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.
Sacchidanand S/O Rajabhau Deshpande, Latur Vs. Maharashtra State Board ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR740; (2003)1BOMLR151; 2002(4)MhLj63
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith.3. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel waives servicefor respondent No.l.4. Mr. Ghute Patil, learned counsel waivesservice for respondent No.2.5. Mr. Shinde, learned A.G.P. waives servicefor respondent No.3.6. By consent, Rule is heard finally at thisstage.7. This writ petition irrespective of thestand sought to be set up by the learned counsel forrespondent No. l namely Maharashtra State Board ofSecondary and Higher Secondary School Education,Latur (for short Divisional Board) that there waserror in the declaration of petitioners result inSecondary School Certificate Examination (S.S.C.)declared in June 1999 has to be allowed in view ofthe fact that the said result of examination wassought to be effected almost after two years which isnot permissible under Regulation 55.8.Regulation 55 of the Maharashtra Secondaryand Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations,1977 (for short Regulations, 1977) provides forpublication of results which read...
Mohandevi W/O Sohanlal Jhawar Since Deceased by L.Rs. Yasoda Binnani a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)4BOMLR293; 2002(3)MhLj820
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In these proceedings the applicants have impugned the correctness of an order dated 4th August, 1987, of the Special Land Acquisition Officer (General), Nagpur, making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on an application by the fourth respondent.2. The applicants are the legal representatives of one Maniklal Jhawar, who expired on 9th July, 1986. The maternal uncle of the deceased Maniklal was one Sundarlal Daga, whose son is the 4th respondent to these proceedings. The case of the applicants is that until 1973 Maniklal stayed at Ahmednagar, after which he shifted to Nagpur and worked thereafter with his maternal uncle, the father of the 4th respondent. The applicants claim that the agricultural land in question admeasuring 13.19 hectors, which has been subsequently acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was purchased by the deceased under a registered deed of conveyance on 1st November 1974. The land was sought to be acquired...
Sutar Pukraj Somtiji Vs. Yellubai Mallappa Wagle and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR349; 2002(5)BomCR16; 2002(3)MhLj787
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and for the respondent No. 2.2. The appellant challenges the order dated 13-3-2002 passed by the City Court, Mumbai answering the preliminary issue regarding the lack of jurisdiction to the City Civil Court to entertain the suit, in affirmative and, therefore, directing return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.3. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and perusal of the record, it is seen that the appellant has filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground that the original tenant in relation to the suit premises had surrendered his tenancy in relation to the suit premises on 20th July 1998 and on the very day the premises were leased out to the appellant by the landlord-respondent No. 2 herein; however the suit premises were occupied by the respondent No. 1 from 22nd September 2000 onwards and when the appellant enquired about the same with the respondents and parti...
Bevit Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Planned Pharma Private Limited and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR314; (2002)4BOMLR273
S.A. Bobde, J. 1. This petition is filed by Bevit Pharmaceuticals Limited whose attempt to have the trade mark 'ATNOL' registered was denied by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks on the ground that it is deceptively similar to the trade mark 'ENTALL P'. 2. The petitioner applied for registration of the word mark 'ATNOL' on14-10-1985 claiming that it has been in use since five days prior to the registration. Upon advertisement being published in the Trade Marks Journal on15-12-1989 a notice of opposition was lodged by the respondent on 5-3-1990. The respondent No. 1 claimed that the word mark 'ATNOL' is likely to cause confusion since that mark is deceptively similar to respondent No. 1's trade mark 'ENTALL P'. Both the trade marks are in respect of medicines for the same ailment for treatment of ear, nose and throat ailments. Respondent No. 1's trade mark is in respect of an ayurvedic medicine. The petitioner's trade mark is in respect of an allopathic medicine. 3. It appears from the...
Lilabai Madre Pillay and ors. Vs. Taheralli Abdul Kayum and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR1046; 2003(1)MhLj716
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Present revision petition is filed by defendants/legal representatives of deceased Madre Pillay - original defendant, challenging the order dated 30-1-1999 passed by learned II Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 264 of 1988. By the impugned order, learned Additional District Judge was pleased to set aside dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 105 of 1981 by virtue of order dated 28-6-1998, passed by Joint Civil Judge J. D. Ahmednagar. In fact, by order passed below Exhibit 83, an application filed by petitioners, learned Joint Civil Judge J. D. Ahmednagar held that the suit of the plaintiffs is totally abated in view of the fact that some of the legal representatives of Madre Pillay are not brought on record, and consequently by separate order below Exhibit 1, the whole suit is dispose of as dismissed.2. Regular Civil Suit No. 105 of 1981 was filed by eleven plaintiffs regarding the suit premises, allegedly let out to defendant Madre Pill...
Suresh S/O Latari Ramteke Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)558; (2003)105BOMLR9
S.D. Gundewar, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent.2. This Criminal Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 11.4.2002 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge. Chandrapur rejecting the petitioner's application for allowing him to take part in the proceedings in the Criminal Revision No. 71/00 filed by the Respondent No. 2,3. The respondent No. 2 Latari s/o Sakharam Ramteke had filed a complaint against the present petitioner and three others for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code bearing Complaint Case No. 25/00, which came to be dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr. P. Code by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur on 25.5.2000.4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 25/2000, the respondent. No. 2 preferred a Revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur bearing Criminal Re...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›