Mumbai Court June 2007 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.
Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. Vs. B. Jeejeebhoy Vakharia an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR419; 2007(4)BomCR65; (2007)109BOMLR1146; (2007)4BOMLR65; 2007(6)MhLj167
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiff. In the suit the Plaintiff is seeking a decree of specific performance of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 22-12-2001 as also of the approved draft agreement, supplemental draft agreement and 3 approved draft declarations and other ancillary reliefs.2. In this Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff is claiming an order of temporary injunction for protecting the possession of the suit property of the Plaintiff, but it was admitted before me by the Plaintiff that presently the Plaintiff is not in possession of the land, therefore, there is no question of granting any temporary injunction protecting Plaintiff's possession of the suit property. The Plaintiff is also claiming a temporary injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 by itself and or through other Defendants from dealing with, disposing of, alienating, or encumbering the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The Plaintiff is a company incorpora...
Balkrishna Hatcheries Vs. Nandos International Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR48; (2007)109BOMLR911; LC2007(2)201; 2007(35)PTC295(Bom)
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for infringement on the basis of their registered trade-mark, of which, according to the plaintiffs, word 'Nandus' is an essential feature. The said mark 'Nandus' is registered in respect of processed and frozen meat products and the said registration is valid and subsisting.2. The Plaintiffs contention is that the Defendants are using impugned mark 'Nandos' in respect of similar goods and/or similar services as that of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs in the suit pray for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from in any manner using in relation to any eatable goods or restaurant or hotelling services or processed and frozen chicken and meat products the impugned trade-mark 'Nandos' or any other deceptively similar trade-mark so as to infringe the Plaintiffs registered trade-mark 'Nandu'. A perpetual injunction on the same terms in relation to passing off...
Thanikkudam Bhagwati Mills Ltd., a Company Registered Under the Provis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR504; 2007(3)ARBLR161(Bom); 2007(4)BomCR21
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This appeal arises from the order dated 18-4-2006 passed by the learned single Judge in Arbitration Petition No.351 of 2005. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge has dismissed the said arbitration petition filed by the appellants/petitioners. 2. The impugned order is sought to be challenged on the ground that though specific grounds as regards the lack of jurisdiction to the arbitrator to deal with the dispute in question, absence of any settlement of claim by the respondents/claimants and failure to comply with the principles of natural justice by the learned arbitrator were specifically raised and further that the counsel for the appellants was never instructed to give up or concede on any of those grounds, the learned single Judge erred in dismissing the petition without addressing to the said issues and without considering the said grounds. It is the contention on behalf of the appellants that the impugned order is contrary to the case put forth...
Bhagirath Shankar Somani and Smt. Kamlabai Bhagirath Somani Vs. Ramesh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR514; 2007(4)BomCR87; (2007)109BOMLR1389; 2007(5)MhLj508
Abhay S. Oka, J.1. Considering the controversy involved in these Petitions, by consent of the Advocates appearing for the parties, the same were taken up for final disposal at admission stage. On 03rd May, 2007 I have heard the submissions of Shri Suresh Gole appearing for the Petitioners and Shri Rajesh Shah appearing for the first Respondent. 2. The Petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 2810 of 2007 are the original first and second Defendants in S.C. Suit No. 4138 of 1978 filed by the first Respondent herein. The second Respondent is the original third Defendant in the said suit. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2823 of 2007 is the original first Defendant in S.C. Suit No. 4137 of 1978 filed by the first Respondent. The second Respondent is the second Defendant in the said suit. Considering the controversy involved in these Petitions, it is not necessary to serve notice of these Petitions to the second Respondent in both the Petitions.3. As stated earlier there are two suits filed ...
Reliance Energy Ltd. Vs. Msrdc Ltd. and ors. Overruled
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR566; 2007(4)BomCR93; (2007)109BOMLR1042; 2007(5)MhLj769
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the decision of the Respondents excluding petitioners from participating as a Bidder for the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link Project. The decision is at Exh.V page 332 of the paperbook. Aggrieved by this action of respondents, the petitioners are praying thus:(a) That this Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to issue a request for proposal document for the MTHL Project to first petitioner's consortium to enable the first petitioners consortium to participate in the second stage of the bidding process and to consider the first petitioner consortium's request for proposal document for the MTHL Project along with others in the second stage of bidding process on merits.(b) That this Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the rec...
Sadhana Arun Kothari, Vs. Mrs. Raj Bhalla Wife of Shri D.N. Bhalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR496; 2007(4)BomCR61
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. The present appeal arises from the judgment dated 14th August, 1998 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Chamber Summons No.1670 of 1997 in Suit No.4542 of 1995. By the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge has allowed the chamber summons taken out by the respondent, who was defendant No.1 in the suit, for revoking the leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent on 17th November, 1995 to the appellants/plaintiffs.2. The challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that the Learned Single Judge erred in not considering the fact that in the suit for specific performance of a contract which was arrived at on the basis of telephonic conversation, the cause of action for filing the suit arises when the acceptance of the agreement is communicated to the proposer and secondly that when the question of territorial jurisdiction is raised while seeking revocation of the leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, the appropriate procedu...
Manubhai P. Vashi Vs. Bar Council of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR439; 2007(4)BomCR3; (2007)109BOMLR1183; 2007(4)MhLj641
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. These two writ petitions have been placed before me pursuant to the order made by the Honble the Chief Justice. These Petitions were filed basically challenging Rule 6(h) & 6(i) of the Rules framed by the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, as also Rule 32(h) of the Election Rules framed by the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa and the elections to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa held on the basis of these Rules in the year 2004. These two petitions came for final hearing before the Division Bench consisting of Honble Mr. Justice F.I.Rebello and the Honble Mr. Justice A.V.Mohta. The two learned Judges presiding over the Division Bench delivered two separate judgments. The Honble Mr.Justice F.I.Rebello held that Rule 6(h) & (i) of the Election Rules framed by the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (hereinafter referred to as the State Election Rules) is invalid. He further held that, however, invalidity of that rule does not affect in any way the result of the elec...
Mahatma Jyotiba Fule Adiwasi Magasvargiya Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sansth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR76; 2007(5)MhLj256
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. On 30-4-2007 Civil Applications No. 2563 of 2007 and 2761 of 2007 for final disposal of writ petition and for giving directions to respondents were on board for hearing. Since Mr. Deopujari, learned A.G.P. has filed reply so also return to the petition, the parties agreed that hearing of the civil applications and also hearing of the main petition itself would take the same time and hence the petition itself should be finally disposed of. In view of the agreement of the parties, I have taken the present writ petition for final disposal.3. The petitioner-Mahatma Jyotiba Fule Adiwasi Magasvargiya Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. has challenged the order dated 25-5-2001 passed by respondent No. 2/Collector, Wardha, by which the Collector refused to grant permission sought by the petitioner for change in allotment of land to the petitioner-society in Survey No. 37 in lieu of the land allotted to ...
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and anr. Vs. Mahesh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR678; 2007(5)BomCR77; 2007(5)MhLj297
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. By the present petition, which is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (for short MHADA) has questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 30-10-1999 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 1068 of 1991, by which the said Court directed the petitioner to release 40% of total surplus land, i.e. 14526.32 sq. tntrs. in the light of the Circular dated 23-8-1988 of the State Government.2. Facts:One Gomaji Mahadeo Darokar who was the owner of Field Survey No. 75/2K, mouza Durga Dhamna, Nagpur, was found to be a surplus land-holder under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short Ceiling Act) with surplus area of 36,315.80 sq. mts. and as such the said surplus land vested in the State Government by virtue of notification dated 26-10-1989 under Section 10(3) of the Ceiling Act. On 12-10-1990 the sa...
Kalawati Pandurang Fulzele Vs. Divisional Controller
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR80; 2007(5)BomCR177
Chaudhari A.B., J.1. The petitioner herein is an unfortunate widow belonging to backward class whose bread has been snatched by the respondent, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Chandrapur Division, Chandrapur (for short, the 'MSRTC') putting her and her two small children to starvation. What would have been the plight of a woman when her coolie husband suddenly became blind and became a liability on her along with her two children. What would have been the plight of a woman who was suddenly deprived of the income even of Rs. 550/- per month with which she supported her two children and her husband who then expired and she became widow during the pendency of the lis. It is further unfortunate that the respondent has, on the basis of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in The (Secretary of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and Ors.) : (2006)IILLJ722SC . and other judgments, sought to unjustifiably dodge the petitioner from getting any relief to which she is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »