Mumbai Court March 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.
M/S.Bade Miya Vs. MubIn Ahmed Zahurislam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
:1. In the present Notice of Motion the plaintiffs have prayed for an order and injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner using in relation to any business of manufacturing and selling or dealing in eatables the trading name "BADEMIYAN" or any other trading name consisting of the word "BADEMIYA" written in any script or the impugned trademark and the impugned logo mark as appearing in the photograph Exhibit-H to the plaint, or any other deceptively similar mark so as to infringe the plaintiffs registered trademark bearing number 641759 in Class-29 and the plaintiffs' registered trademark bearing number 1738175 in Class-42 and to further restrain the defendant from passing off their goods and/or services as those of the plaintiffs. By consent of the parties the Notice of Motion is at the ad-interim stage taken up for final hearing.2. The plaintiff no.1 is a partnership firm of which the plaintiff nos.2 to 5 are partners. In the year 1947 Mohamed Yasin Nane Miyan, the fath...
Umesh Bhagwan Patil. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.2. Heard rival arguments of the parties at length. Perused the accompanying documents to the present Writ Petition. Also perused the affidavit filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, ZoneII, Panvel, District Raigad who has passed the externment order.3. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the externment order passed against him dated 20th September,2010 externing him from the territories of Districts Raigad, Thane, Greater Mumbai and Mumbai Subarban District for the period of one year.4. Certain factual position, as emerged out from the documents produced in the Writ Petition and the affidavit filed by the Externing Authority Ankush R.Shinde, can be narrated in order to have proper perspective of the matter and to decide the challenge to the impugned order.5. Senior Inspector of Police, Panvel City Police Station submitted a proposal on 19th September, 2009 to the Externing Authority for initia...
Mr.Shashikant R. Kulkarni Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
:1. By the present Revision Application, applicant/orig.accused No.9 in C.R. No.I220/2006 registered with Kalamboli police station, Navi Mumbai prayed for setting aside the order dated 6th December, 2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Alibaug. The said order was passed in Sessions Case No.27/2010 which arise out of investigation in C.R. No.I220/2006 registered with Kalamboli police station for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 and Sections 325 & 27 of the Arms Act. However, so far as the present applicant is concerned, apparently the charge against him is that of criminal conspiracy for the offence punishable under Section 320 r/w. 120B of Indian Penal Code.2. As mentioned above, the order dated 6th December, 2010 passed in Sessions Case No.27/2010 rejecting the application for discharge of present applicant/accused No.9 is challenged in the present matter. It is prayed that the present applicant be discharged from the said Sessions Case No.27/2010 pending on the file o...
Citizens Organisation for Public Opinion Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
1. The petitioner claims to be a Non-Government Organization (NGO), formed in the year 1989. It is not stated whether it is a legal entity in as much as whether it has been registered under any appropriate Act. The petitioner claims that in this petition it seeks to expose Senior Police Officers indulging in corruption during the course of conducting investigation and as the quality and standard of investigation is likely to be seriously jeopardized, enabling the guilty to escape punishment because of the senior police officers shielding the culprits for extraneous considerations and hence, so as to ensure clean and efficient administration of criminal justice system, the indulgence of this court is sought for giving appropriate directions to the authorities concerned. 2. As per the petitioner, disturbing newspaper reports were published concerning corruption by the State CID officials of Pune, which indicated that the Commissioner of Police, Pune City and the then Additional Director ...
ShamIn @ Chintu JamaluddIn Shaikh Vs. the Senior Inspector of Police a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
:-1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent.2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction against respondent No.5, the State of Maharashtra, to transfer the investigation in connection with C.R. No. 440 of 2010 registered with the Khar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 307 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'CBI', for the sake of brevity). The petitioner has prayed for further direction that an independent authority be directed to conduct enquiry into the inactions / delay in investigation in the above numbered criminal case registered with Khar Police Station, Mumbai, and to take appropriate action against the erring police officers.3. The background in which this petition has been filed is that on 23rd September, 2010, the petitioner got himself admitted in ...
Sangram S/O Janardhan Tupe Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
: 1) The petitioner challenges notice dated 26-7-2010 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beed, under sedition 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short, "the Act of 1951'). The notice was issued asking him as to why he should not be externed from Districts of Beed, Osmanabad, Jalna, Ahmednagar and Aurangabad for a period of two years.2) The petitioner contends that he is residing in Beed town since last 25 years. He is a reputed Advocate practicing in District Court Beed since last 9 years. The petitioner submits that, his father was elected as a Member of the State Legislative Assembly and is a social worker. The petitioner is Chairman of Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society, Pimpalwadi and is working as Secretary of Beed Zilla Rashtrawadi Congress Party. The petitioner further contends that, respondent No.4 - Deputy Collector (Employment Guarantee Scheme) and Resident Deputy Collector Beed lodged a complaint against the petitioner and pressurized police to register an ...
Mr.ishpal Singh Kahai Vs. Mrs.Ramanjeet Kahai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
Rule. Returnable forthwith.1.The Petitioner/husband has challenged the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Mumbai, directing him to remove himself from the residential flat in which he resides being flat No.2102, 21st floor, Beverly Hills, Shastri Nagar, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai (the suit flat) and from creating nuisance by attempting to enter in the suit flat until the hearing and final disposal of the Petition. The Respondent/wife sued the Petitioner/husband for divorce and other incidental reliefs, being inter alia a mandatory order directing her husband to remove himself, from entering into the suit flat and disturbing her possession. She applied for temporary injunction for the aforesaid reliefs in which the impugned order came to be passed.2.Though the Petition is not expressly stated to be filed under the provisions of the Protection of women against Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), the substantial interim reliefs are available to the wife under it and it...
isibars Limited Vs. Commerzbank Ag and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. Respondent 1 is a banking corporation incorporated under the laws of Germany having its Head Office at Kaizerplatz, Frankfurt, Germany. The petitioner-company had taken certain credit facilities from respondent 1. The petitioners did not clear the outstanding dues and, therefore, respondent bank filed Original Application No. 153 of 2001 for recovery of the said amount in the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Mumbai (for short, "the DRT").2. It is the petitioner's case that after they filed their written statement in January, 2002, they came to know from the newspaper reports that respondent 1 had surrendered its banking licence in India and had stopped its banking operation in India. The petitioners therefore filed a miscellaneous application and called upon respondent 1 to produce the banking licence. Respondent 1 in its reply admitted that it had surrendered its banking licence. The petitioners, therefore, filed a miscellaneous application seeking dismissal of the original application ...
Ashish Parikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.2. The appellant, by this application seeks leave to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal for the offence under Sec. 438 of Negotiable Instruments Act in Case No.538/SS/05 passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. According to the complainant, the accused/respondent had issued two cheques of Rs.9 lakh each towards part-payment of his outstanding dues on account of the purchases made by him On 25.4.2005, both cheques were deposited by the appellant and the drawee Bank returned the cheque unpaid with endorsement "attachment received from Crime Branch". Inspite of service the statutory notice making demand, the accused failed to make payment within the statutory period. The trial Court acquitted the accused holding that there is no evidence on record to show that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds or sufficient arrangement made with the Bank.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant concedes th...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhausaheb Balaji Korde and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
Judgment 01. Heard learned counsel for the parties.02. By the present appeal, the appellantState has challenged the judgment and order dated 23.3.2000 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola, District Ahmednagar, in Regular Criminal Case No.151 of 1994, thereby acquitting all the accused Nos. 1 to 4 (respondents herein) for the offence punishable under Section 7(i) read with rule 50, punishable under Sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ("PFA Act" for brevity's sake).The factual matrix, which gives rise to present appeal, is as follows.03. PW1 Complainant R.D. Kokadwar, was appointed as Food Inspector under Section 9 of the PFA Act and rules made thereunder, for Ahmednagar District, vide order dated 17.7.1993 by the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra State, Bombay who is the Local (Health) Authority for Panchayat Samiti Block areas with Ahmednagar Dist., appointed vide Government Notification dated 15.4.1983. I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »