Mumbai Court August 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.
Chandrakala W/O Vaijanathrao Ghatul Vs. Kathalu S/O Maroti Hatagale an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR619; (2008)110BOMLR2778
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Both these L.P.A.'s are being disposed of by this common Order as the issue involved is the same.2. A few common facts may be set out which would be essential for the purpose of disposing the controversy as raised in these Appeals.The appellants in both the Appeals and Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 are the elected members of Village Panchayat, Sawargaon, Tq-Manwat, Dist-Parbhani. The appellant in L.P.A. No. 139 of 2008 was Upasarpanch and the appellant in L.P.A. No. 140 of 2008 was the Sarpanch. Respondent Nos. 1 and 6 to 9 in both the L.P.A.'s moved a motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch and Upasarpanch on 18/10/2007. The grounds raised were the same. On 23/10/2007 the Tahasildar convened a special meeting for considering the no confidence motion. On the date of the motion, five elected members were present. It appears that both the Sarpanch and Upasarpanch did not participate. The motion, therefore, was passed as required by two-third majority.3. The appellants pr...
Satish Pralhadrao Raikwar Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR233; 2008(6)MhLj805
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Ghate, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.2. Shri Ghate, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner was appointed as Daftari and posted in the Industrial Court, Amravati. Considering the performance of the petitioner, he was promoted to the post of Bailiff vide order dated 31.8.1990. The petitioner thereafter was posted as Clerk-cum- Typist vide order dated 29.11.2000. Vide order dated 19.5.1993, the petitioner was transferred from Amravati to Nagpur Industrial Court and since 1993, the petitioner was working in the Industrial Court, Nagpur till the passing of the impugned order. The petitioner was entrusted with the job of supplying certified copies of orders passed by the Labour Court as well as proceedings and documents. While working in the office of Labour Court, Nagpur, the petitioner was caught by the Anti Corrup...
Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan and ors. Vs. Vidya Bhavan Public School Society
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3544; LC2008(3)369
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants.2. Suit has been filed by the plaintiffs society against the defendants for infringement of their trade mark 'Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan' and 'Bhavan's'. Their logo and the artistic design in respect of the said logo have been registered on 04/02/2004. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the word 'Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan', therefore, cannot be used by any other person. It is their case that the defendants have used the identically similar sounding name 'Vidya Bhavan' and that they have also made advertisements about their School which has been established in 2007 on the website. It is alleged that in the website, they had shown photograph of the Plaintiffs' building and the other details of the plaintiffs' School/Institute also have been mentioned on the website of the defendants. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs have acquired goodwi...
Brijlal Kolsya Kokani and anr. Vs. Poslya Ananda @ Budha Kokani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj139
S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. The defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 97/1996 are appellants in this Second Appeal. The respondent-plaintiff had filed said suit claiming partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit property. The defendants appeared and filed written statement at Exh. 30. The trial Court framed issues at Exh. 31. Those are seven in number. The trial Court after considering the evidence led on behalf of the parties decreed the suit with costs holding that the plaintiff is entitled to get his one half share in the suit property by partition. The decree was directed to be sent to the District Collector under Section 54 of Civil Procedure Code for effecting partition. Mesne profits were also directed under Order 20, Rule 12(1)(c) of Civil Procedure Code. The judgment and decree is passed on July 26th, 2000. This judgment and decree was subject-matter of challenge before the District Judge in appeal. It was Regular Civil Appeal No. 32/2000 under Section 96 read wit...
Gayabai W/O Maroti Bodadkar Vs. Namdeo Dajiba Junghari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR314; 2008(6)MhLj786
S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. The appellant/original plaintiff Sou. Gayabai is taking exception to the judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Yavatmal, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 99/1989 filed by the respondent to challenge the judgment and decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 151/1978, decided by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wani, by which the plaintiffs suit for possession of the suit field i.e. Survey Nos. 138/2 and 138/2B of Punwat, Tq. Wani, Disit. Yavatmal (hereinafter referred to as suit field) was decreed. The consequence of the said appeal was the dismissal of the suit.2. Brief facts leading to the suit of the appellant/plaintiff are thus;One Saibai owned suit field situated at Punwat, Tq. Wani, Distt. Yavatmal. It is alleged that she had inherited the suit field from her mother. She died on 3-6-1974, leaving behind Sakhubai as legal representative, rather legal heir being her real sister. She was original plaintiff in the suit. In the suit she has claimed that Saibai di...
J.M. Constructions Vs. Dr. Rustom P. Patel and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR598; (2008)110BOMLR2806
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.3. Mr. Walawalkar waives notice for Respondent No. 1 who is the only contesting respondent for the purpose of present Writ Petition.4. As short question is involved, Petition is heard finally forthwith by consent.5. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Bombay dated 2nd November, 2006 in Revision Application No. 228 of 2005. That Revision Application was filed by the Respondent No. 1 taking exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the trial Court dated 9th September, 2005 in Interim Notice No. 82 of 2005 filed in pending RAE No. 771/1409 of 2004. The said Interim Notice was taken out by the Respondent No. 1 praying for permission to file Written Statement beyond permissible period. In other words, the said Application was for condonation of delay in filing ...
Ghanshyam S/O Vithal Garje Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2648
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. By this Petition, Petitioner impugns Judgment rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Appeal No. 2/1995, whereby and whereunder conviction and sentence rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beod in Criminal Case bearing (RCC No. 478/1993), to the extent of offences punishable Under Sections 420, 471 of the I.P.C. came to be confirmed.2. The Revision Petitioner is a contractor for Civil works. He was prosecuted for commission of offences Under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. He was tried before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on such charges in RCC No. 478/1993. He was convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 420 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months. He was also convicted for the offence Under Section 468 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six (6...
Ashok Kelwade and ors. Vs. Vidarbha Gas Vessels Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR253; 2008(5)BomCR18; (2008)110BOMLR2679; [2008(119)FLR347]; (2009)ILLJ83Bom
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. By the present petition, the petitioners workmen have challenged the judgment and order dated 24.2.2003, made by the Member of Industrial Court, Nagpur in Revision ULPN No.156/2002, by which the learned Industrial Court reversed the judgment and order made by the Labour Court, Nagpur and dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioners.FACTS:2. The petitioners workmen who are the original complainants filed Complaint ULP No.752/1998 in 3rd Labour Court, Nagpur. In the complaint they averred that the respondent industry manufacturers LPG accessories etc. in the factory at M.I.D.C., Nagpur since 1984. On 28.7.1998 the respondent issued an order retrenching the complainants for the reasons that there was severe recession in the market on accumulation of stock putting the respondent in financial difficulties. On 30.7.1998 when the workers reported for duty, they were told that they were retrenched. They approached the labour Court vide Complaint U.L.P. No.452/1998, in ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager and Aut ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR731; 2008(5)BomCR35
P.R. Borkar, J.1. Shri A.B. Gatne, Advocate for the appellant and Shri P.S. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are present. With the consent of the parties this appeal is heard finally at the stage of admission.2. This is an appeal preferred by the insurance company, which is original opponent No. 2 being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hingoli in M.A.C.P. No. 176 of 2001 decided on 10.10.2005. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are the original claimants. They are legal heirs of deceased Gajanan s/o. Sayaji Shinde, who was son of respondent No. 1 and 2, husband of respondent No. 3 and father of respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Respondent No. 7 is the insured and owner of truck No. MP-09-KA-9549.3. It is original case of the claimants that on 22.01.2001 the deceased Gajanan was travelling in Truck No. MP-09-KA-6549 and went to Chor Pangra. He was on duty as a cleaner. One Shaikh Abdul was the driver of the said truck. When the truck was re...
The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Noble Asset Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR25; 2008(131)ECC102; 2008(157)LC102(Bombay); 2008(230)ELT22(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Revenue has preferred this appeal against the common order dated 5th April, 2005 passed by CESTAT in the Appeals and Applications which were filed before it. The Appeals were preferred against the common order in original dated 23rd March, 2005 of the Commissioner of Central Customs (Preventive) in the matter arising out of the show cause notice dated 7th August, 2003. The Appeals preferred were allowed, both as to objection as to jurisdiction as also on other points which are set out in para.7 of the impugned order. It is Revenue which has preferred this Appeal.2. One of the question of law which was urged before the learned CESTAT and which was framed, read as under:Whether the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) was the proper officer having jurisdiction to seize the rig in the EEZ and whether he was competent to issue a show cause notice and adjudicate the same to demand duties on goods imported, assessed and cleared on assessment orders of the proper officer of...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »