Mumbai Court July 2010 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.
Sunil Vilasrao Patil, Aged 33 Yrs., and anr. Vs. Shri Swami Vivekanand ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
1. The above petitions have been filed by the teachers who are working in the various night schools run by the respondent No.1 3 WP 1477 of 2002 Management. The petitioners by way of the above petitions are inter alia claiming directions against respondent No.1 Management to the effect that they be given appointment as full time Assistant Teachers with effect from the date of their first appointment i.e. 26111990 or from such other date as this Court deems fit.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, few facts can be stated which are necessary for adjudication of the above petitions. As indicated herein above, the petitioners are working as an Assistant Teachers in the night schools run by the respondent No.1 Management. The petitioners have been so appointed in the night schools from the year 1995 till 1996 or thereabouts.3. It is the case of the petitioners that some other teachers, who are similarly placed, have been given appointment as full time assistant teachers in the secondary schools...
Mohammad Aisanullahuq S/O Haji Mohammad Massom Maniyar Aged 78 Years, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
1.By means of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the validity, legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 18.8.2006 passed by the learned 2nd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Washim in Regular Civil Appeal No.158/1999 whereby the first appellate Court while allowing the appeal, was pleased to direct dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No.226 /1994 which was decreed by learned 9th Joint Civil Judge J. D. on 1.12.1999.2. The facts briefly mentioned are : The plaintiff had filed suit for possession of portion of the suit property admeasuring 60 sq.ft. triangular site shown in the map annexed with the plaint, alleging use by the defendants free of charge as licensee. The plaintiff claimed it was revoked by the plaintiff by a notice through an Advocate; but the defendants did not comply it; whereas according to defendants, the suit site was included in the premises let to the defendants and the defendants claimed that the plaintiff could not have filed suit without obtainin...
Laxman S/O Bajirao Kondekar Aged About 55 Years, Vs. Sau. Kamal W/O Sh ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
1. This Appeal raises important substantial question of law relating to production of additional evidence in Appellate Court as permissible under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, ( in short " the Code") and was admitted on 21st August, 1998 on following substantial questions of law :"(a) Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in not considering the additional evidence placed on record by way of documentary evidence which had a material bearing on the subjectmatter of the suit. More specifically when the contentions pertaining to the said document was already wellseeded in the oral testimony of the parties which was considered by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.(b) Whether, the first Appellate Court considering the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 was justified in outright rejecting the additional documentary evidence placed on record by the appellant, more specifically when the documents did not require the detailed enquiry by way of additional oral e...
Raymond Limited . Vs. Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
1. This Appeal takes exception to the order dated 15-02-2007 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Notice of Motion No.661 of 2006. That Notice of Motion was taken out by the Appellant in Suit No.437 of 2006. Suit No.437 of 2006 is filed by the present Appellant claiming a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing their trade-mark. The Plaintiff Raymond Limited is a company, which is the successor of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. incorporated under the Companies Act in 1925. Which had conceived and adopted the use of the word Raymond in a stylised manner for for marketing its products. On 27nd June, 1983, the plaintiff obtained registration for the trade mark 'Raymond' under registration No.401766 registered in Class 25 in respect of textile piece goods including shirting, suiting and saris, dress materials, blankets, shawls, satin, bed and table covers, bed spreads, bed sheets, tissues, felts, curtains, flannel, handkerchiefs, linen, cloth linings, towe...
Smt. Sarita Gopalkumar Chand Aged About 40 Years, Vs. Madgu S/O Sitara ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
1. This Appeal at the instance of original plaintiff is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.9.2008 passed by learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge S.D., Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 575 / 2006 whereby the suit for ejectment and vacant possession filed by her, was dismissed.2. Facts briefly are : Suit plot No.253 in CRS III Scheme NIT Middle Precinct, Ward No.24, District Nagpur, admeasuring 1500 sq.ft. was allotted on renewable leasehold rights to Tulsabai Mahagu Khobragade and Dattatraya Mahagu Khobgrade, on 24.5.1996 by Nagpur Improvement Trust. Mahagu expired on 13.3.1975 leaving his legal heirs wife Tulsabai and son Dattatraya. Tulsabai expired on 12.7.1998 leaving behind her sole heir Dattatraya Mahagu Khobragade to inherit all the rights in suit property. The plaintiff purchased the suit property for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/ on 17.9.1998 after Dattatraya obtained consent from Nagpur Improvement Trust ( in short " NIT") for transfer in favour of the plaintiff.3. During life ...
Shri Shamsundar Yashwant More, Age 63 Years, Vs. the State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No.4 dated 28041997, which is confirmed in Departmental Appeal by the First Appellate authority by its order dated 15061999, which is also confirmed by the second appellate authority by its order dated 20062000. The petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings and was given chargesheet dated 23051989, wherein certain charges were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner gave reply to the chargesheet and pleaded innocence. An Inquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted an inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report by holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved. The Disciplinary authority disagreed with the Inquiry Officer's report and came to a conclusion that the charges are proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary authority therefore, issued a show cause no...
M/S. Ajmeri Gold Fingers Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petition takes exception to the order dated 18/10/2010 passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner herein came to be dismissed and resultantly, the order passed under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 came to be confirmed. 3) Shorn of unnecessary details, it is required to be stated that the petitioner was held to be in default of the remittances to be made under the said Act. It is required to be noted that the aspect of applicability of the said Act to the petitioner as also the default in the remittances to be made by the petitioner under the said Act came to be decided by order dated 28/3/2007 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the said Act. 4) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the Employees' Pro...
M/S Shiv Herbal Research Laboratory Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Provident F ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard.2. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 18/2/2011 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, by which order the Appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed and resultantly the order passed under Section 7-A and 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 came to be confirmed.3. Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be stated thus -The petitioner was held to be accessible by virtue of the order dated 17/8/200 passed under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. By the said order, the petitioner was also asked to make a remittances for the period 1/3/1998 to 31/7/2000. The petitioner also received the show cause notice to show cause as to why damages and penal interest under Section 14B and 7-Q of the said Act should not be ...
SadruddIn S/O Jeevanlal Dobriya Vs. Parshuram Mahadeo Bramhankar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2) This petition takes exception to the order dated 27/4/2011 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-1, Yavatmal whereby application (Exh. 60) filed by the petitioner for leading additional evidence by invoking Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected.3) The petitioner has suffered a decree in Small Cause Suit No. 46/2003. The said suit was filed for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent. Against the decree dated 27/6/2005, the petitioner has filed Regular Civil Appeal No.45/2005. The said Appeal was posted for hearing on 25/4/2011 on which day, the appellant's Counsel did not appear. However, though the Appeal was dismissed for default, on the application moved by the Counsel for the respondent, the arguments of the respondent were heard on 25/4/2011 and the appeal was posted for judgment on 27/4/2011. On the said day, i.e. 27/4/...
M/s. Vasant Pungli Karkhana Vs. the Presiding Officer, Employees' Prov ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petition takes exception to the order dated 18/10/2010 passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner herein came to be dismissed and resultantly, the order passed under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 came to be confirmed. 3) Shorn of unnecessary details, it is required to be stated that the petitioner was held to be in default of the remittances to be made under the said Act. It is required to be noted that the aspect of applicability of the said Act to the petitioner as also the default in the remittances to be made by the petitioner under the said Act came to be decided by order dated 28/3/2007 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the said Act. 4) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the Employees' Pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »