Mumbai Court July 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.
Tata Communications Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. Rule, by consent, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the Counsel and at their request, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This Petition has been listed for hearing and final disposal with a companion Petition (Vodafone Essar Ltd. vs. Union of India & ors.)1 which was decided on 17 June 2011. The challenge in those proceedings before the Court was to a Circular dated 15 July 2010 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade and to several notices issued by the Zonal Joint Director and by the Joint Director General, purporting to revoking the benefit granted under the Served From India Scheme (SFIS). The scheme was formulated under the Foreign Trade Policy for 2004-09. The circular under challenge was in turn based on the minutes of a meeting of the Policy Interpretation Committee (PIC) dated 5 July 2010. Counsel for the Petitioners has confined the challenge in these proceedings to the decisions taken at serial nos. 1, 2(b), 4(ii) and 4(iii)...
Rajendra Mohanlal Rathi Vs. Smt. Shyamabai Wd/O Ramsingh Punjabi and a ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
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 order dated 02.03.2011, by which the application Exh. 190 filed by the petitioner for being allowed to examine a witness came to be rejected. The petition also takes exception the order dated 29.03.2011 by which the review application filed by the petitioner against the said order dated 02.03.2011 came to be rejected. The petitioner is the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 123/2005 which has been filed by the respondent herein for eviction and possession against the petitioner, who is a tenant in the suit property. The ground for eviction and possession is that the respondent bonafide requires the same. 3. In the said suit, the petitioner filed his written statement on 27.01.2006. The issues thereafter have been framed and the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff and some of the witnesses o...
Smt. Sushama W/O Sunil Shilam Vs. the Collector, Nagpur District and o ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
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 the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dated 28.01.2011 passed by the Collector, Nagpur by which the application filed by the petitioner herein invoking section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 came to be disposed of by observing that the Offset Printing Machine, which is supposed to be used by the respondent no.3 is within 5 HP's which is the permissible limit in terms of the N.O.C. granted by the respondent no. 2 Municipal Council. 3. The issue raised in the application is whether in the residential area a N.O.C. could be granted by the respondent no.2 Municipal Council to the respondent no.3 to run an Offset Printing Machine. It appears that the respondent no.3 applied for running Offset Printing Machine in the residential premises at Warispura Ward, Tq. Kamptee, Dis...
Devendra Ganpatlal Chamedia and ors. Vs. the Chief Officer and Compete ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
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 4/5/2010 passed by the President, Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment), Tribunal, Mumbai, by which order the appeal filed by the petitioners herein came to be dismissed. 3. The facts involved in the above petition can be stated in brief thus - The petitioners are the owners of land bearing Survey No.51 situated in Ward No.19 of Municipal Council, Yavatmal. It appears that the Municipal Council by a letter dated 23/7/1987 passed a Resolution that the said land situated in Ward No.19 bearing Survey No.51 be declared as Slum, as there are no basic facilities or amenities, and hence recommendation be made to the State Government. The respondent no.1 - Municipal Council in terms of the Resolution forwarded the proposal for declaring the land owned by the petitioners f...
Rajendra Pandurang Pagare and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties. Since the issues involved in both these petitions are the same, they have been heard together, with the consent of the parties. 02. The challenge in both these petitions is to the selection of the private respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) to the posts of Civil Engineering Assistants, pursuant to the advertisement No. 2/2008. The petitioners claim that these respondents did not possess the qualifications required for being selected to the posts of the Civil Engineering Assistants, in consonance with the recruitment rules. The petitioners contend that each of them had undertaken a special course expected to be completed by candidates aspiring to be Civil Engineering Assistants, whereas the respondents had no such qualification. In essence, therefore, what has been challenged in the present petition, is the selection of the respondents to the posts of the Civil Engineering Assistants. 03. Mr....
State Bank of India Vs. Sarjerao Sitaram Khade
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
1. Being aggrieved by the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara in consumer complaint No.127/2005 decided on 29/06/2006 whereby while allowing the complaint partly against opponent No.1, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed opponent No.1/State Bank of India, Branch Waduj, District Satara to pay to the complainant a sum of `17,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 04/08/2005 and also directed to pay `2,500/- for mental harassment and cost of `1,000/-. As such, State Bank of India has filed this appeal. 2. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :- The complainant-Sarjerao Shitaram Khade had filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of State Bank of India and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. According to the complainant he had taken a loan from the State Bank of India/opponent No.1 for purchasing two cows. He had taken loan of `30,000/-. He accordingly purchased cows and took insurance cover ...
Balaji Impex Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
1. Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the communication issued to them by the Assistant Commissioner Customs (Preventive) Alibag Division (Exhibit G) by which they have been informed that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, who was nominated by the Commissioner of Customs for finalization of the provisional assessments of certain bills of entry, under a special drive had finalized the assessments and passed orders accordingly. The communication contains an annexure setting out the provisional assessments which have now been finalized, and calls upon the Petitioners to pay the duty alleged to have been short paid. 3. The grievance of the Petitioners is that - (i) No hearing was afforded to them by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs; (ii) No speaking order has been passed and (iii) Even the elementary principles of natural justice have...
Drums Food International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Euro Ice Cream and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
1. The Notice of Motion is heard finally. 2. The plaintiff has sought a declaration that a cease and desist notice issued by the defendants is an unjustified and groundless threat and that the use of the mark "HOKEY POKEY" by it does not constitute an infringement of the defendant's trademark, identical thereto registered under class 30 and also does not constitute the tort of passing off. The plaintiff has also sought an injunction restraining the defendants from issuing such threats and passing off products under the said mark or any mark similar thereto and from using the said mark or any marks similar thereto in relation to ice-cream shops/parlours or business establishments or rendering any retail or restaurant services under the said mark or any mark similar thereto. 3. For the purpose of this Notice of Motion, it is necessary to refer to only a few facts. The defendants label mark, a dominant part whereof consists of the words "HOKEY POKEY", was registered in India under class 3...
Santoshi Mahila Mandal and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
1] This writ petition is preferred by the employer challenging the judgment and order dated 13th July, 2006, passed in Appeal No. STC/15/94 by the Additional School Tribunal (Nagpur), Chandrapur. The appeal filed by the respondent employee challenging her termination from service as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 3.12.1993 has been allowed. The termination has been set aside, the management has been directed to reinstate the respondent- employee on the post of Assistant Teacher in its School namely Veer Bhagat Singh School with continuity in service and full backwages. 2] This matter was before this Court in earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition No. 15/2002, decided on 27th August, 2002. After considering the rival submissions made by the parties, this Court framed following points for determination by the School Tribunal, a] Whether the petitioner has worked in the respondent-school. If yes for what period and in what capacity? b] At which point of time the services of the petitioner...
Madhavrao S/O Krishnarao Zade Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
1) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above writ petitions involved identical facts and common questions and are therefore heard and disposed of together. 3) The petitioners in the above petitions are aggrieved by the order dated 10th November, 2010 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal, by which the execution application filed by the petitioners for execution of order of this Court dated 18th October, 2004 came to be rejected on the ground that the order of this Court passed in a writ petition could not be executed by the trial Court and that the parties can avail of appropriate remedy for the implementation of the order of this Court passed in a writ petition. 4) The facts in brief can be stated thus. Petitioner Madhavrao in Writ Petition No.771/2011, which is the lead matter, was the owner of Survey No.1/1, area admeasuring 1 hectare 87 ares situated at Wagada village, Taluka and District Yavatmal. The la...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »