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.
Vijay Aabarao Raje Age : 32 Years, Vs. the State of Maharashtra Throug ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-19-2010
1. Leave to amend prayer clause `B' granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing, at the stage of admission.4. By the present Petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashment of impugned order dated 19th January, 2010 in Appeal No.2009/305/VS-5 passed by the respondent no.1 and consequently prayed that the said appeal preferred by the petitioner be allowed and also prayed for quashment of impugned order dated 15th September, 2009 passed by respondent no.2 externing the petitioner from three districts i.e. Nanded, Latur and Parbhani.5. FACTUAL MATRIX :-It is the case of the petitioner that notice dated 23rd June, 2009 under Section 56-B of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 issued by respondent no.2 was served upon petitioner alleging therein that the Incharge Officer of K...
A.H. Mistry and Co. Vs. Awadh Narayan Singh Shiv Nayak Singh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2010
1.This suit is filed by the Plaintiff initially against Defendant Nos.1 to 5 (the Defendant) for specific performance of the agreement for sale entered into by these parties on 1.11.1979 as vendors and in the alternative for return of the earnest / part consideration of Rs.32,000/- paid by the Plaintiff to Defendant Nos.1 to 5 with interest at 18% per annum thereon and for other ancillary reliefs consequent upon the specific performance being granted, pending the suit. The Defendant as vendors entered into an agreement with Defendant No.6, which agreement has been challenged as void and not binding on the Plaintiff.2.The Agreement dated 1.11.1979 is the usual agreement for sale of land with occupants by the owners to a purchaser / developer. Under the agreement, the amount of Rs.3 Lakhs was the consideration amount paid. Rs. 30,000/- were the earnest payable. Rs.5,000/- were paid prior to the execution of the agreement on 2.10.1979. The remainder of the earnest amount plus Rs. 2,000/- ...
Smt. Sharda W/O Purushottam Chore, Aged 49 Years, Vs. the State of Mah ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-19-2010
1.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner seeks admission to Post Graduate Nursing Course with the respondent no.3 Institute of Nursing Education, Mumbai.3. The main contention of the petitioner is that the requirement imposed by respondent no.2 that the candidate must have 5 years' experience in Government service after passing of any of the examination of basic B.Sc. Nursing is illegal, being contrary to Regulations prescribed by The Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947. We find variance between the Regulations placed by the Indian Nursing Council which provides minimum one year of work experience after Basic B.Sc. Nursing and minimum one year of work experience prior or after Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing and the requirement by respondent no.2 which is five years' experience. Section 16 (g) and (h) of The Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 reads as follows "16 (g) prescribing the standard curricula for the training of...
K.Rajdenran Vs. Poongothai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2010
1. A wily and insidious husband as appellant has challenged the order dated 11.08.2003 passed in CMA No.3 of 2002 by the District Court, Karur, wherein the order passed in HMOP No.81 of 1997 by the Family Court/Sub Court, Karur is reversed.2. The appellant as petitioner has filed the petition in question under sections 13 (1) (i-a) and i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying to dissolve the marriage held in between him and the respondent.3. The epitome of the petition can be stated like thus:The petitioner has married the respondent as per Hindu rites and caste customs on 11.11.1988. Both of them have been blessed with a female child by name Rajasuganthi. The petitioner and respondent have lived in Andrapradesh and all of a sudden the respondent has exhibited some hostile attitude towards the petitioner. The respondent has caused mental cruelty to the petitioner. On 01.08.1992 the petitioner has met with an accident which resulted amputation of his right leg. The respondent has no...
Anuradha Sridhar Vs. Dr.Umesh M. Thakkar
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2010
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member The complainant has filed this complaint against Dr.Umesh M. Thakkar alleging medical negligence on the part of doctor. It appears that she herself drafted the complaint. So, she has narrated the incident and questioned the treatment given by doctors and in the process she has alleged medical negligence against him. According to complainant, her husband Subramaniam Sridhar, aged 42, died suddenly on 25/02/1997 and in the medical certificate of death, the cause of death has been given as terminal cardio-respiratory failure, due to acute pyogenic meningitis, with brain stem encephalitis and acute right otitis media. According to the complainant on 20/02/1997her husband went to Dr.Umesh Maganlal Thakkar, Consulting Physician and Cardiologist at Satyam Polyclinic, A/101, Vertex Vikas, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 069 also practicing at Parvish Nursing Home, Telli Galli, Andheri (E), Mumbai, since her husband was havin...
M/S.Hotchand Sons and Others Vs. the Bombay Metropolitan Region Develo ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2010
Per Mrs.S.P. Lale, Honble Member 11 complainants have filed complaint against the O.P./Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority through Mr.Shrish M. Shah, Chairman of the Federation of Manmade Textile Traders Association for deficiency in service. The complainants have claimed refund amount of Rs.15,000/- collected from each of the complainants together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment till the realization. Complainants have also claimed Rs.25,000/- each for the inconvenience caused to them and Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the litigation. The complainants have authorized Shri Shrish M. Shah to represent their case before this Commission since the complaint involved common interest and based on identical facts and similar circumstances. It is the case of the complainants that considering the development of textile trade in the city of Mumbai and inadequacy of market place and congestion, O.P. decided in 1982 to relocate the wholesale market in textile at the site...
Arviva Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Vikas M. Tulsian and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2010
1.The Plaintiffs have instituted this Suit to seek an order of injunction on the ground that the Defendants are violating their trade mark VIVA by selling readymade garments with marks VIVACITY, VIVZ including its variants viz. VIVZ GURLZ, VIVZ 79 and VIVZ GALZ. It is also the case of the Plaintiffs that on account of use of these marks, the Defendants are passing off their goods as that of the Plaintiffs which is in violation of the right of the Plaintiffs qua their mark VIVA. The Plaintiffs have prayed for damages in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. The Plaintiffs have also prayed for delivery of the goods and other articles manufactured by the Defendants bearing impugned mark VIVACITY and VIVZ for destruction.2. For the sake of convenience, the mark VIVACITY can be referred to as VIVACITY and other marks viz. VIVZ, VIVZ GURLZ, VIVZ 79, VIVZ GALZ can be referred to as other marks. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants are advertising their products on a website www.vivacity.co.in and th...
Union of India, Through General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai, and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31.7.1996 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Claim Application No. 369/OAI/RCT/NGP/91 allowing the claim of respondent for Rs. 2,22,320/ awarding thereon interest at the rate of 9% from the date of application till the date of order and future interest at the rate of 6% from the date of order till realization, appellants have preferred the instant First Appeal.2. Respondent was consignee in respect of Boiler Spares despatched by M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Tiruchirapalli. When the consignment arrived at the destination station, it was found in broken condition and, therefore, respondent demanded open delivery which was granted by the Railway Authorities. In the Joint Open Delivery Report, shortages as described in the claim petition were detected. Respondent lodged claim for Rs. 3,07,773.14 with appellant no.1. It was informed by appellant no.1 that that the claim was transferred to appellant no.2 as the destin...
Dadasaheb S/O Bhausaheb Pathare, Age 53 Years, Vs. the State of Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1) Heard.2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of the counsel taken up for final hearing.3) The petitioner's land was subjected to acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner contends that on 512001 Notification under section 4 of the Act came to be published in the Official Gazette. The subject land was acquired for construction of percolation tank. Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was not issued. On 1572004 the respondents again issued Notification under section 4 which was published in the Official Gazette, according to the petitioner. On 2152005 a declaration under section 6 of the Act came to be published in the Official Gazette wherein acquisition in respect of Gut No.182 admeasuring 1 Hectare 29 R belonging to the petitioner was mentioned. As no further steps could be taken consequent to the acquisition proceedings the petitioner approached this Court seeking directions to declare that the land acquisition ...
Jijamata Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Sukhedeo Ramhau Fulzade Age ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
This Appeal is at the instance of unsuccessful defendant, a registered Cooperative society, challenging the judgment and order dated dated 14.2.1994 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 113/1994 arising out of dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 39/1991 by the Court of learned Civil Judge, J.D. Chikhli.2. The plaintiff had instituted the suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, J.D. Chikhli, Dist. Buldana, to recover a sum of Rs. 15,828/ from the Jijamata Sahakari Sugar factory, on the ground that it was part of its business to supply sugarcane for the purpose of sowing (Bene) to the farmers and to accept sugarcane for the purpose of production of sugar. The plaintiff had, therefore, appointed some trucks for the transportation of sugarcane from the field of farmers to the factory or to supply sugarcane for farmers for sowing purposes. The subordinate office of the defendant society at Chikhli had called tender to appoint trucks pursuant to which the plaintiff was appointed to supply su...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »