Mumbai Court November 2011 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.
Deepak Mittal Vs. Harivansh Agencies
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. By consent of respective counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. By means of this Petition, the petitioners prayed for setting aside the impugned order of issuance of process dated 22.3.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Corporation Court No.2 Nagpur for the offence punishable under sections 403, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in R.C.C. No. 3165/2009 passed against the applicants. 3. It is the grievance of the applicants that both the accused against whom a complaint was lodged were resident of Hoshiarpur (Punjab ) and, as such, placed beyond the jurisdiction of the learned trial Magistrate. The trial Magistrate chose to issue process merely after perusing the complaint, recording verification and perusing the documents filed by the complainant. The impugned order was passed on the basis of prima facie documentary evidence against the accused. 4. Mr. R P Joshi, learned Advocate for the applicants submitted with referenc...
Netcore Solutions Pvt.Ltd. and Tulsiani Chambers and ors Vs. the State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. By consent of respective counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. By means of this Petition, the petitioners prayed for setting aside the impugned order of issuance of process dated 16.12.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and Special Court under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( henceforth," the N.I.Act" in short) in Summary Criminal Case No.16047/2010 passed against the petitioners ( original accused nos.1 to 7). 3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that all the accused against whom a complaint under section 138 of the N.I. Act was lodged were resident of Mumbai and, as such, resided beyond the jurisdiction of the learned trial Magistrate at Nagpur. The trial Magistrate chose to issue process merely after perusing the complaint, verification and the documents filed by the complainant. The impugned order was passed on the basis of prima facie view of accusation against the accused for offence punishable under section 138 of t...
Ajay So Ramesh Bhute and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. By consent of respective counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this Revision Application, the revision -applicants pray for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No.85/2010 whereby the learned Judge directed the trial Magistrate to appreciate the evidence of complainant to find out whether a case is made out under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The order dated 22.6.2010 passed by the trial Magistrate on Exh. 57 was also set aside. 3. It appears that a complaint was lodged by the respondent- complainant against the present revision-applicants on the ground that the accused no.1 Ajay Ramesh Bhute came in the shop of complainant in order to buy a television of Sansui company for a sum of Rs,19,990/- on credit with promise that the amount of price will be paid soon. Since the proprietor of the complainant M/s Jai Matadi Electronics was on cordial terms with t...
Anil Chhabildas Chaudhari Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant nos.1 and 2, requesting that the conviction imposed upon them by judgment and order dated 8-8-2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 73/2001, pending hearing of Criminal Appeal No. 449/2011, be suspended. 3. It is the contention of the applicants that they have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, by the judgment and order dated 8th August 2011, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 73/2001. It is also contention of the applicants, that they have questioned the conviction and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No. 449/2011 before this Court and same has be...
icici Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd. and Others Vs. Smt. Chaturbai ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2011
S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member These revision petitions are directed against the impugned orders as referred in the cause title, allowing the application for condonation of delay in respective matters. Original Opponent, namely I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the insurance company for the sake of brevity), challenged those orders by way of these revision petitions. Since these revision petitions involve almost identical circumstances and common question of law, these revision petitions are disposed of by this common order. [2] For the sake of clarity, we hereby tabularize the relevant information in relation to each revision petition as under:-Revision Petition No.Date of impugned orderMiscellaneous application No.Name of the farmer insuredDate of death of farmer11/1822/11/201070 of 2010Sopan Waghmare5/12/200511/1922/11/201060 of 2010Shriram Ingole26/7/200511/2022/11/201054 of 2010Dnyanoba Sable19/4/200511/2122/11/201059 of 201...
Alaknanda Cement Private Limited. Vs. Ultratech Cement Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2011
1 By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20th June, 2011, the learned single Judge (S.J. Kathawala, J.) has allowed the Notice of Motion No. 1183 of 2009 filed by the respondent-plaintiff in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The said prayers read thus : (a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, that the Defendants by themselves, their directors, partners, their servants, agents, stockists, or any other person claiming through or under them and the like be restrained by a temporary order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from using the impugned mark "ULTRATUFF CEMENT" annexed as Exhibit "E", in any manner, directly or indirectly, or any other deceptively similar mark in respect of cement products or any other goods so as to infringe the Plaintiff's registered trademark ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice (Registration Nos. 1326528) (b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, that the Defendants by themselves, their directors, partners, thei...
Shri Ramesh K. Shetty Vs. State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Ms. Cardozo, learned AGP waives service on behalf of the Respondents. Heard Mr. Kansara for the Petitioner and Ms. Cardozo, AGP for the Respondents at length. By consent, the Writ Petition is take up for hearing forthwith. 2. By the impugned order passed by the Licensing Authority, the eating house license given to the Petitioner under Section 33 (xa) and the license for public entertainment issued under Section 33 (w) & (y) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 has been cancelled by the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai by order dated 30th June, 2011 and the Appeal filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed. The facts of this case lie in a very narrow compass and are as under. 3. The Petitioner has been given a license to open/keep the place of public entertainment bearing license No. "CP/NM/LB-1/4/2004" in his eating house known as "Ramesh Bar And Restaurant" situated at Plot No. 105/25, Sector 23, J...
Alaknanda Cement Private Limited. Vs. Ultratech Cement Limited.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2011
JUDGMENT : ( Per Girish S. Godbole, J.) 1. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20th June, 2011, the learned single Judge (S.J. Kathawala, J.) has allowed the Notice of Motion No. 1183 of 2009 filed by the respondent-plaintiff in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The said prayers read thus : (a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, that the Defendants by themselves, their directors, partners, their servants, agents, stockists, or any other person claiming through or under them and the like be restrained by a temporary order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from using the impugned mark "ULTRATUFF CEMENT" annexed as Exhibit "E", in any manner, directly or indirectly, or any other deceptively similar mark in respect of cement products or any other goods so as to infringe the Plaintiff's registered trademark ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice (Registration Nos. 1326528) (b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, that the Defendants by th...
The Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Ms. Chika Overseas Pvt. Ltd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.D. DEVADHAR, J.) 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was liable to pay interest u/s.220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) after thirty days from the service of the fresh demand notice dated 24/12/2006 pursuant to the fresh assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, is the question raised in this appeal. 2. The assessment year involved herein is AY 1994-95. 3. Initially, by an assessment order passed under Section 143 (3) of the Act on 28/2/1997, the income for the assessment year in question was assessed at Ra.2.05 crores and by a demand notice dated 28/2/1997, demand of Rs.1.76 crores was raised against the assessee. On appeal filed by the assessee, the CIT(A), by his order dated 8/9/1997 partially allowed the claim of the assessee, as a result whereof the income was reduced to Rs.18.30 lakhs. Lateron, the ITAT set aside the assessment order dated 28/2/1997 and directed the assessing officer to pass fresh...
Patel Engineering Limited Vs. United Real Estate and Builders Pvt Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1 Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 27/4/2011 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai by which order Notice of Motion No.1840 of 2010 filed by the Petitioners who are the original Defendants in Short Cause Suit No.2987 of 2002 came to be rejected. 3 Shorn of unnecessary details a few facts can be stated thus :- The Respondents have filed Short Cause Suit No.2987 of 2002 for injunction. Suffice it to say that the said suit came to be dismissed for non- prosecution on 23/2/2005 on account of non-compliance by the Plaintiffs in the matter of service of writ summons. It appears that for some reason, the application for restoration was not made by the Plaintiff, and was ultimately made in March 2010 by filing Notice of Motion No.845/10 for restoration. The said motion was served on the Defendants with a covering letter that the same would appear on board on 9/4/2010. The defendants...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »