Mumbai Court March 2008 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.
Maganlal Savani and anr. Vs. Uttam Chitra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR184; 2008(3)BomCR624; (2008)110BOMLR924; LC2008(2)95
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This order will govern the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion. By consent and at the request of Learned Counsel , the Motion has been taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The First Plaintiff is a proprietary concern and claims a sole and exclusive copyright in respect of nine feature films which form the subject matter of the suit. The Second Plaintiff is a Company incorporated under the Companies' Act, 1956 to which the First Plaintiff has granted a licence inter alia in respect of the suit films. Defendants 1 to 4 are the producers of the films; Defendant 5 claims copyrights in the films; and Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 are Companies through whom Defendant No. 5 claims the alleged rights.3. A chart has been submitted before the Court in respect of the nine suit films containing: (i) The name of the film; (ii) The name of the producer; (iii) The date of the agreement; and (iv) The territory over which sole and exclusive rights are claimed by the Plaintiff. To facilit...
Sitaram Balu Bhopi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MhLj9
A.S. Oka, J.1. I have heard the submissions of Shri S.M. Kamble the learned Advocate appearing for the applicants in support of this application. I have also heard the submissions of Shri A.A. Kumbhakoni, learned Associate Advocate General for the respondent-State of Maharashtra.2. The respondent-State of Maharashtra has preferred the aforesaid First Appeal for challenging the Judgment and Award dated 22nd September, 1988 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raigad at Alibag in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as 'the said Act'). The reference was made at the instance of the applicant (the respondent in the First Appeal) in this application. The subject matter of the Appeal is a plot of land at village Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad which was notified for acquisition by virtue of a notification dated 3rd February 1970 issued under Section 4 of the said Act. The Award under Section 11 of the said Act was made o...
Dashrath S/O Kisan Bondade and ors. Vs. Shyam Sunder S/O Madanlal Khan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR884; 2008(4)MhLj116
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is defendants' appeal.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:The plaintiff was interested in buying agricultural land. He had, therefore, made a request to one Mr. Bang to be in search of agricultural land for him. Through Shri Bang, the plaintiff approached the defendant No. 1 in September, 1989 for purchasing the land belonging to the defendant. The defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. It was agreed initially that the plaintiff will pay Rs. 5000/- as an advance and part of the consideration i.e. Rs. 1,50,000/- shall be paid on or about 6-11-1989, on the date the defendant agreed to execute an agreement of sale. Balance of the consideration was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale-deed. The defendant executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff paid him Rs. 1,55,000/-. It was agreed that the property shall be sold free from all encumbrances. The...
Bharatbhushan Ramchandra Sonule and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR905; 2008(4)MhLj278
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Dastane, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Thakre, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1, Mrs. Munshi, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Shri Motghare, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and Shri Shende, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 9 to 24.2. Shri Motghare, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition. It was contended that Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 13-4-2005 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 3311/2004, 3942/2004, 3943/2004 and 6113/2004 has held that inter se seniority of Teachers working in the Secondary Schools administered and managed by the Zilla Parishads in the State of Maharashtra will be governed by the provisions of Secondary Schools Code. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, therefore, contended that present petition is not maintainable at the behest of the...
Ganpat Pandurang Ghongade and ors. Vs. Nivrutti Pandurang Ghongade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR629; 2008(5)MhLj153
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The original plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal challenging the concurrent dismissal of his suit for removal of encroachment and for restoration of possession. He has also challenged the reversing judgment of lower Appellate Court by which counter-claim filed by present respondent (original defendant) came to be allowed and one acre of land from possession of present appellant is directed to be handed over to the respondent. The appeal has been admitted on questions No. 2 and 10 mentioned in memo of appeal as substantial questions. Those questions are as under:2. Whether, contents of the document can be said to have been proved, specifically when the parties are disputing the truth of what the document states specifically when the document is in handwriting of petitioner writer and who is not examined although he was available?10. When the party who is found to suppress the original document can be allowed to rely on xerox copy thereof without production of...
Jayesh H. Pandya and anr. Vs. Subhtex India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MhLj749
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The relief which the petitioners seek in an Arbitration Petition invoking Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is in the following terms:that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that Mr. S. N. Variava has become de jure unable to perform his functions and the mandate of Mr. S.N. Variava to act as an Arbitrator in the arbitral proceedings between the parties has terminated.2. The petitioners and the second respondent are partners of a partnership firm by the name of Hetali Construction Company. The first respondent is a Company incorporated under the Companies' Act, 1956 and is the claimant in the arbitral proceedings before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava, former Judge of the Supreme Court. The petitioners are party respondents to the arbitral proceedings. The third respondent to the present proceedings is the Court Receiver who has been appointed as Receiver of the properties and assets of the partnership.3. Placing reliance on a d...
Maloji Patil Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ903
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Both these appeals arise from the common judgment and order dated 4th and 11th August, 2006 passed in Special Case No. 10/2004 by the Children's Court at Panaji and both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant in appeal No. 64/2006 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act') and has been ordered to undergo the punishment for 3 months and a fine of Rs. 500/ - on account of the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence punishable under Section 509, IPC and to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the said Act. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused has pre...
Karansingh S/O Kachrusingh Kakas Vs. the Chief Executive Officer, Cant ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR219; 2008(3)BomCR59; 2008(3)MhLj891
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Heard respective counsel. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by mutual consent and taken for final hearing. 2. A very short question of interpretation of Rule 5 of the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007, arises for our consideration in this writ petition.3. Petitioner is resident of cantonment area, Aurangabad, and elections of Cantonment Board, Aurangabad, are round the corner. Respondent No. published a draft of Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 31 of the Cantonments Act, 2006. The Cantonment Board has also published a draft for division of cantonment into wards on the notice board as well as in the local newspapers on 10.9.2007 inviting objections and suggestions. After considering the objections and suggestions, the wards were formulated and taking into consideration the latest census figures of the Cantonment Board, seven wards were formulated out of which Ward No. 7 was declared as reserved for scheduled caste.Accord...
Damodar S/O Jagannath Lokhande and Liladhar S/O Purushottam Narkhede V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2940
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 390 of 2007 has been filed by the applicants praying for transfer of Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 1278 of 2007 and 1877 of 2007 from Principal Seat at Mumbai to Aurangabad Bench for the reasons stated in that application.2. In order to examine the merit or otherwise of this application, reference to necessary facts can be made at the outset. One Smt. Rajani Vishram Patil had filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 646 of 2005 praying that a direction be issued for transferring the investigation of Crime No. 242 of 2005 registered at Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon, against the four accused to the Central Bureau of Investigation as the investigation was not being conducted in accordance with law. According to her, her husband, Prof. V.G. Patil, who was the President of the District Congreee (I) Committee, Jalgaon, was assaulted by two persons. The incident was noticed by witnesses and they escaped on a motor-cycle. The offence wa...
Kishore Chandrakant Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR230; 2008(3)BomCR271; 2008(3)MhLj760
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The short question raised in this Public Interest Litigation ('PIL' for short) is, where the tender condition provides that the tenders received below the minimum bid amount would be rejected and the highest tender received pursuant to the said tender is below the minimum bid amount, then, is it open to the Government/Corporation to award contract to that highest tenderer without inviting fresh tenders3. The petitioner, ex-mayor of Sangli and presently a Corporator/Councillor in the Sangli Miraj Kupwad City Municipal Corporation 'Corporation' for short) has filed this PIL to challenge the order of the State Government dated 6th November, 2007 wherein the proposal submitted by the Corporation to award the contract to the respondent No. 3 below the minimum bid price fixed under the tender has been approved. On such approval, the Corporation has awarded the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »