Mumbai Court November 2009 Judgments

Ravi Kiran Agarwal and anr. Vs. Moolchand Shah and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]152CompCas637(Bom); [2010]97SCL182(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit.2. With the consent of counsel, the appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal. It has been stated before the court that, respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have been duly served. An affidavit of service shall be filed within a period of one week from today.3. The appeal seeks to impugn the correctness of an order passed by the Company Law Board on December 10, 2008, by which, an application filed by the appellants for impleadment in proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, was dismissed.4. The fifth respondent was incorporated on December 9, 1987. On April 18, 1995, a memorandum of understanding was entered into between the appellants and respondents Nos. 6 to 16, who are the shareholders of the fifth respondent. Under the memorandum of understanding, the appellants agreed to purchase 1,200 equity shares of the fifth respondent held by respondents Nos. 6 to 16, representing 60 per cent, of the equity share capital of the company for a...

Bhima Developers and Builders Through Its Partner Shri Abhijeet M. Mag ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President 1. Heard Mr. S.R. Ganbavale-Advocate for the appellants. 2. First point which was raised by Ld. counsel that the order has been passed by the District Consumer Forum, ex-parte. Ld. counsel accepts that he was served with the matter and he has also filed reply to the complaint. He also states that on the date when the matter was closed for judgment, matter was fixed for arguments. Only grievance is that the matter was fixed in the afternoon/second session. He further states that Advocate Mr.Ramesh Hirve attended the District Consumer Forum on that day in the afternoon session, but he came to know that the Forum has heard the matter in the first session and closed the matter for orders. It is also an admitted fact that when the advocate appeared before the District Consumer Forum, he did not give an application to the District Consumer Forum making grievance that the matter was fixed for hearing in the afternoon session and accord...

Sau. Mariyam Samad Mulla Vs. Dr. Sau. Asha Sadanand Joshi and Another

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President: None is present for both the parties. This matter was presented on 04/02/2008. Thereafter, from the order dated 22/07/2008 it appears that the appellant was present and he was given a date 02/12/2008 and accordingly, Advocate/ Authorised Representative for the appellant has signed the date. The matter appeared on 02/12/2008 when the appellant was present in person and on its oral request the matter was adjourned to 08/04/2009. It appears that thereafter the matter was listed on 21/07/2009. On this day the respondent was present. He made a grievance that the documents, appeal memo etc. have not been furnished therefore, the appellant was directed to give the said documents within 15 days and the matter was adjourned to 12/11/2009. Today the appellant as well as the respondents both are absent. It appears that the appellant is not prosecuting the matter diligently and probably his grievance is seems to be redressed. Hence, we pa...

Smt. Kausar Tasneem Khan Vs. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Divisio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR282

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. P.C. Madkholkar for the petitioner, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader Mr. D.B. Yengal for respondent No. 1 and learned Adv. Mr. M.K. Pathan for respondent No. 6.2. Petitioner was appointed as a Junior College Teacher in Zilla Parishad Girls High School, Yavatmal, on or before 9th November, 1990. She had applied for transfer to Zilla Parishad, Amravati. The order of transfer and absorption into the establishment of Zilla Parishad was passed on 3rd November, 1992. Perusal of order, copy whereof is at Annex. 'A' at page 25 of paper-book reveals that the petitioner has been transferred against a vacant post.3. Respondent No. 5, who is an employee in the employment of Zilla Parishad, Amravati, as a Teacher in Secondary School, also possessed qualification, and claimed that she was entitled for transfer and posting as a Lecturer in Junior College in same Zilla Parishad.4. Respondent No. 5 had already applied for transfer and posting. The request of the resp...

Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. and anr. Vs. Best Media Associates (Indi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR257; LC2010(1)1

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This is an action for passing off and infringement of the plaintiff's trade-marks and copy rights. The plaintiff has sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the word 'variety' and the flying 'V.' logo and/or any other similar or deceptively similar marks, style and/or logo as part of the defendant's publications, web site, trading style or otherwise so as to infringe the plaintiff's registered trade mark variety. The plaintiff has also sought a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from passing off its publications and/or web site as that of the plaintiffs by using the said mark and logo and/or any other mark or logo similar or deceptively similar thereto, a permanent injunction retraining the defendant from infringing its copy right in the original artistic work as shown in Exhibit 'A' to the plaint and a mandatory order directing the defendant to forthwith change the name of its publications and/or web site so as to ensure that...

Ku. Shalini Gajananrao Dalal, Now Sou. Shalini Onkar Sorte Vs. New Eng ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR307; 2010(112)BomLR26

Vasanti A Naik, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Both the petitions are heard finally with the consent of the parties. Since the issues involved in both these petitions, are almost identical, they are being heard together and are decided by this common judgment.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4242/2004, is the employee and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4532/2004 is the management who had terminated the services of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4242/2004. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4242/2004 was appointed as Assistant Thacher by the management on 6.11.1981 in a post earmarked for the Scheduled Tribe Category. The Assistant Teacher claimed to be belonging to Halba Caste. The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur however, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by an order dated 19.8.2003. The Assistant Teacher who was at the relevant time working as Headmistress filed Writ Petition before this Court against the order dated 20.8.2003,, bu...

Ms. Khushbu Ghia Vs. Kuoni Travels (i) Pvt.Ltd.

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President 1. This matter was listed for final disposal on todays board and we have heard Ms. Khushbu Ghia- appellant in person and Mr. S.B. Prabhawalkar-Advocate for the O.P. Factual matrix which are not in dispute are as follows:- 2. O.P. is a limited company registered under the Companies Act of 1956 carrying out business of Tours and Travels in various parts of the World. We are concerned in the present matter tour of Europe. The said tour as per code of the O.P. is PLEV 2104 and the tour was to commence on 21/4/1999 till 08/05/1999 and the said tour to Europe was for 18 days. From the brochure, we find that it was a tour for vegetarian tourists. The complainant is a teacher working with Palm Beach School in Mumbai. On 30/1/1999, complainant approached the O.P. and deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- and confirmed the booking. It further appears that from time to time the further amounts were deposited by the complainant and on 30/1/199...

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai Regional Office Mumbai Vs. Ch ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar Honble Presiding Judicial Member: (1) This appeal was called out first at 11.20 a.m. and none was present for the Appellant. So, we kept it aside and now at 12.40 p.m. we have again called out this appeal. Appellant and his Advocate are not present. We are finding that this appeal is hopelessly time barred. There is a delay of 385 days for filing this appeal. For seeking condonation of delay, Misc. Application No. 1457/2009 has been filed. The Appellant submits that delay is not intentional or deliberate and it occurred on account of circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant and delay in filing of this appeal is neither willful nor wanton. (2) Appellant states that this Appellant being public sector undertaking, permission is required from regional head office and therefore, this delay has occurred in filing this appeal. This is the only ground mentioned in its delay condonation application. Insurance companies by now know that appeal is r...

Miss Anuja Avinash NawaThe and ors. Vs. University of Pune,

Court: Mumbai

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioners are students pursuing the Five Year B.Arch. Course with respondent No. 3 - Institution, which is affiliated to the University of Pune - respondent No. 1. The petitioners appeared for the third year course which consists of examination as well as the Sessionsal/Viva examination held in April 2009. The subject matter of the present petition is the paper of 'Architectural Design III'. This subject has written examination of 100 marks as also 200 marks for Sessional and Viva-voce. The petitioners have been declared as failed in the sessional-viva-voce examination of 200 marks. Hence, the present petition.3. It is the case of the petitioners that 200 marks are divided into two parts viz. 'Internal Assessment' as well as 'External Assessment'. Both Internal and External Assessments are further divided into two parts - 75 marks for Sessional work and 25 marks for Viva-voce, each. It is the case of the petitioners that the Inter...

Abdul Rahim @ Guddu S/O Abdul Majid Vs. Sheikh Qayyum S/O Sheikh Rashi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj343

Vasanti A. Naik, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission as the notice for final disposal was issued to the respondents by an order dated 27.4.2009.2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Samudrapur on 18.3.2009 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for exhibiting the document dated 11.4.1966, called the Bakshis Patra.3. The petitioners are the original defendants. The defendants had filed the documents and since the trial court had not exhibited the document dated 11.4.1966, called the Bakshis Patra, on the ground that the document was not a registered document, the petitioners filed an application for exhibiting the document for effectively deciding the dispute between the parties. It was the case of the petitioner that the document dated 11.4.1966 was admitted by the plaintiff in his cross examination and the document being 30 years old, ought to have bee...