Mumbai Court July 2011 Judgments
Girish @ Babalabhai S/O Champalal Vs. Shankarrao Kachruji Maiskar and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1) Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Kotwal, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3. None appears for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 though served. 2) The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 7/3/2011 whereby the application (Exh. 2) for staying the judgment passed in Misc. W.C.A. Case No.3/2008 and the Revenue Recovery Certificate No.71-1/2010 came to be rejected. 3) The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are the claimants in the said Misc. W.C.A. Case No. 3/2008. The said claim was on account of death of the son of respondent nos. 1 and 2, who was working at the relevant time with the petitioner, who was the principal employer and the respondent no.3 herein was a Contractor employed by the petitioner to carry out certain civil works. The said Misc. W.C.A. Case No.3/2008 came to be allowed and the petitioner and respondent no.3 were ...
Tag this Judgment!Ritesh S/O. Balveersing Sauda Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant, namely, Ritesh s/o. Balveersing Sauda, by way of judgment and order dated 30th March 2010, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Beed, in Sessions Case No. 91/2009, thereby convicting the appellant (original accused) for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year, and also, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, and also directing that out of the said fine amount, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- be paid to the complainant, namely, Pruthvi s/o. Dharamsing Pival, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mansingh S/O. Gopusingh Pawar Vs. Kailash S/O Alasingh Chavan
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. Heard Mr. Aniruddha C. Jaltare, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. S. Shingne, learned counsel for Respondent-sole. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner questions the order dated 01/01/2011 passed below Exh. 64 in Summary Criminal Case No. 803/2001, whereby the learned trial Magistrate had rejected the application for sending the cheque in question for expert opinion regarding the age of ink on the said cheque. It is noted by the learned Magistrate that the technology to determine the age of ink is not available, while according to learned Advocate for the petitioner, such technology is available with CBI at Delhi and, he will furnish address of the Forensic Laboratory where such examination is done for determining the age of ink on the document in question. Be that as it may, learned advocate for the petitioner is aware of availability of such technology. He is at liberty to apply afresh before the learned trial Magistrat...
Tag this Judgment!Kalpataru Properties Private Limited and anr. Vs. Kalpataru Hospitalit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. The plaintiff has sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using in relation to its business or service, the mark "Kalpataru's" or the word "Kalpataru" or any other deceptively similar word as a part of its corporate name or trading style so as to infringe the plaintiff's registered trademarks and from so using the said mark as to pass off or enable others to pass off the defendant's services and/or business as that of the plaintiffs and/or to indicate any connection with the plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff No.2, Property Solutions (India) Private Limited, was incorporated on 27th November, 2000 for the purpose of carrying on the business of facility management, mall management, project management services, including business management services. Plaintiff No.2 is a part of the Kalpataru group of companies of which plaintiff No.1 is the flagship company. Plaintiff No.2 has been using the trademark KALPA-TARU registered in the name of plaintiff No.1 with the permission of...
Tag this Judgment!The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. the State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1 These proceedings have been instituted by the Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited seeking directions to the Collector and District Magistrate, Sangli, to provide administrative assistance on an expeditious basis under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("Securitisation Act, 2002") for taking possession of the secured assets more particularly set out in Exhibit "A" to the Petition. The grievance of the Petitioner is that six applications are pending before the Collector, some of them for several years and despite this, the Collector has not taken expeditious steps under Section 14. The Petitioner addressed a letter dated 12 May 2010 to the Second Respondent and on 16 November 2010 to the Divisional Commissioner. On 23 February 2011 the Collector, the Second Respondent was directed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune to take appropriate action inspite of which no action, it is stated, has been taken. As ...
Tag this Judgment!Pundlik S/O. Tanbaji Nikhare Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. Heard Mr. R.M.Daga, Adv. for the applicant and Mr.A.S.Parihar, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. 2. ADMIT. 3. By this application, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the proceedings in Summary Criminal Case No.279 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (3rd Court), Gondia instituted pursuant to lodging of Crime No.17 of 2010 at Police Station Gondia (Rural) on 28.1.2010, u/s. 304-A r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In an unfortunate incident/accident, Vishal @ Vilas Umesh Lamkase, a boy aged about 10 years, fell in a cooking pan on or about 15.10.2008 and while receiving medical treatment in the New Gondia Hospital, Gondia, he died on 27.10.2008 as a result of 80 % burn injuries. On that basis, accidental death was registered as Marg Intimation No.35 of 2008 on 10.12.2008. It appears that earlier Jayatrabai w/o. Umesh Lamkase had filed Criminal Writ Petition No.652 of 2009 against the State of Maharashtra as well as agains...
Tag this Judgment!Ashfaquali Ramzanali @ Babbumiya Vs. Hiralal W/O Bhagwandas Shahu
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
01) Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter by consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. 02) Shri S.V.Manohar, the learned Counsel appears for the petitioner and Shri B.N.Mohta, the learned Counsel appears for the respondent sole. 03) The question is whether the area in question falls in the Notified Slum Area. The Appellate Court, has, in the order impugned in this petition, recorded the finding, that tenanted at premises does not fall in slum area and hence, the decree for eviction and possession, has been passed after recording further finding, that the case is made out by the landlord for eviction and possession. 04) Initially, this matter was dismissed by this Court on 24.2.2010. This order was challenged by filing an appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, has decided the Civil Appeal No.1864 of 2011 observing, that this Court to consider the set of documents i.e. maps and revenue records placed before this Court in writ petition and to take a dec...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdas Bhagwan Bankar Vs. Ku. Ujwala Panjabrao Lahamge and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. Heard Mr.Deepak Gupta, Adv. for respondent no.1 and Mr.A.S.Parihar, Adv. for respondent no.2/State. None appears on behalf of the applicant. 2. By this application, the applicant prays for to quash and set aside the judgment and order dt.24.8.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Revision No.,49 of 2010 with a further prayer to restore Summary Criminal Complaint Case No.11 of 2007 and to decide the complaint expeditiously. 3. It appears that Criminal Complaint u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the present applicant against respondent no.1 Ujwala in which the process for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of the Act was issued on 15.7.2008. Later, on 28.8.2009, when complainant remained absent, the complaint came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. But, on the same date, the complainant moved an application for restoration of the complaint which was restored on 28.8.2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs. Parshuram S/O Gopalji Kore
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 15/11/2010 passed by the Labour Court in Reference IDA No.14 of 2008. By the said order, the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 filed by the respondent herein came to be allowed. 3. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above petition are stated thus - The respondent herein came to be appointed on 8/12/1992 on a fixed salary of Rs.750/- per month by the petitioner which is an Agriculture Produce Market Committee functioning at Gondia. The services came to be terminated of the respondent on 20/03/1995, which resulted in the respondent filing Complaint ULP No.66 of 1995 invoking Item No.1 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. It was the case of the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Vyankatesh S/O Ramaswami Reddy Vs. the Learned District and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The order impugned in the above petition is the order dated 1/3/2011 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records whereby the Application filed by the petitioner invoking Section 232 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for setting aside the order dated 19/7/2010 came to be rejected. 3) It is the case of the petitioner that the District Superintendent of Land Records, Nagpur, i.e. respondent no.1 herein without calling for the service report, proceeded to hear the proceedings filed by the respondent no.3 herein and passed the order dated 19/7/2010 directing mutation to be effected in favour of the respondent no.3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the civil proceedings being Regular Civil Suit No. 34/2006 filed by the respondent no.3, the address of the petitioner shown is the correct address i.e. r/o Bela, Tahsil Umred, District Nagpur whereas in the said rev...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »