Mumbai Court August 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.
Shri Sai Vividh Karyakari Seva Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
PER COURT : 1. Both the petitions involve a common question of law and as such, are decided together. 2. The petitioners are the registered Co-operative Societies registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5711/2011 were registered on 31.05.2011 and 09.06.2011, whereas the petitioners'/society in Writ Petition No. 5910/2011 were registered on 06.06.2011. 3. The respondent No. 3 published a notification on or about 01st July, 2011 declaring the election programme for finalization of voters list for the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulations) Act 1963 (hereinafter referred as the "Act of 1963" for the sake of brevity). The voters list was published on 02nd July, 2011. The last date for raising objection was 18.07.2011. The final voters list is to be published on 08th August, 2011. As per the said progra...
Anil Madhavdas Ahuja Vs. Marvel Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
1. This is a derivative action filed purportedly on behalf of the first defendant-company essentially to restrain defendant Nos.2 to 6 from, in any manner, dealing with and/or conducting business by using the word, trade-name and/or mark "Marvel Fragrances Company" or any other mark deceptively similar to the first defendant's trade mark "Marvel Fragrances" so as to pass off their goods, business and/or trade as and for the trade and business of defendant No.1. Although certain other reliefs are also claimed in prayer (b) I did not understand the learned Advocate General to have pressed the same except insofar as it may concern the action for passing off. 2. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 6 are the members of the Ahuja family. Defendant No.4 is the wife of defendant No.3. The plaintiff and defendant No.5 are their sons. Defendant No.6 is the wife of defendant No.5. Defendant Nos.3, 5 and 6 are the partners of the second defendant firm - Marvel Fragrances Company. The plaintiff, d...
Bhaskar S/O. Haribhau Gotephode Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this application u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the F.I.R. No.3011 of 2011 lodged u/s. 3 (1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") r/w. Sections 294 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that the applicant and respondent no.2 are members of Village Panchayat, Barad Kini, Tq.Bramhapuri, District Chandrapur. Respondent no.2 is up-sarpanch. According to the applicant, there is political rivalry between the applicant and respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 had cut down "Gulmohar tree" in the School premises and had carried wood by bullockcart. Therefore, the applicant approached the Police Patil, who seized the wood and the bullockcart under Panchanama dt.23.1.2011 at about 11.00 A.M. It is further case of the applicant that F.I.R.No.8 of 2011 was lodged in respect of t...
Sonali D/O Bhimrao Khandate Vs. Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Science ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
Top of Form 1. Heard. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard finally. 3. Challenge is to refusal to consider petitioner for admission to B.V. Sc & A.H. 2011-2012. The refusal is because petitioner did not furnish bonafide certificate for the year 2011-2012. 4. Advocate Mrs. Jog points out that petitioner passed 12th standard Board Examination in 2010-2011 and then took admission to B.Sc. Course 1st year in Fergusson College Pune. She appeared for MHT-CET examination conducted in 2011 and is placed at Sr. No. 232. According to her merit, she is eligible for admission. On erroneous ground that bonafide certificate is not produced, the admission has been rejected. Our attention has been invited to certificate of bonafide studentship issued by Fergusson College Pune on 29.6.2011 to contend that said certificate is proper and sufficient. 5. Attention is also invited to Clause 10 (v) which provides such student to make grievance and it is urged that such grie...
Shri Shailesh Narayan Shinde Vs. Shri Chetan Vitthal Tupe and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. Both these appeals are directed against the common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19th and 20th March, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent No.3 of LPA No.115 of 2009 and that of Pune Municipal Corporation. The learned Single Judge accordingly quashed and set aside the order dated 19-01-2007 passed by the 7th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, in Election Petition No.1 of 2007. The Small Causes Court, Pune, had initially allowed the Election Petition filed by the present appellant. However, the said order is set aside by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the above appeals. 2. By an order dated 20th December, 2006, the Collector of Pune District, declared the elections of the Municipal Corporation for the City of Pune. The said elections were to be held in the month of February 2007. The candidates were to submit their nomination forms till 15-01-2007. The appellant was a duly nominated candidate of the Bharti...
Sunil Dadaji Katole Vs. Bismillah Abbas and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. Heard Mrs.Anjali Joshi, Adv. for the applicant and Mr.Dhiraj Bhoyar, Adv. for respondent no.1. 2. By this application u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the order dt.8.2.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No.51 of 2010. 3. It appears that Misc. Criminal Application No.80 of 2008, u/s.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the respondents was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Seloo on 26.3.2010. The respondents had challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the said order in Criminal Revision Application No.51 of 2010 in Sessions Court, Wardha. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order allowed the application for maintenance for minor applicant Sachin Sunil Katole directing the applicant herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- p.m. towards maintenance of Sachin. However, the learned Sessions Court dismissed the application as far as grant of mai...
Waman S/O.Gulab Kadam and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. While rejecting Criminal Application No.2372/2011, moved by the appellants, for their release on bail during the pendancy of this criminal appeal, hearing of the criminal appeal itself was expedited by our order dated 26/07/2011. Hence, this appeal is taken up for final hearing out of turn. 2. The appellants, who stand convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 302, 452 r/w. 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation to undergo SI for 6 months for first offence, and to suffer RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation to undergo SI for 6 months for the second offence, in Sessions Case No.20/06, by Extra Joint Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, by his judgment and order dated 10/05/2011, have questioned the correctness of their conviction and sentence by the present appeal. 3. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus - (a) I...
Mahesh Thakkar at Mahes Manubhai Gadhai. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
ORAL JUDGEMENT: 1. On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by one Rajkumar Anand, the applicant was arrested in CR No. 200 of 2009 of Kandivali Police Station, which was in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant filed an application for bail before the Court of Sessions, Greater Bombay, which was allowed and the applicant was directed to be released on bail. While granting bail to the applicant, the Court of Sessions imposed certain conditions, one of which was regarding the payment of an amount of Rs.40 lakhs to one Hitesh Nandlal Ajmera (respondent no. 2 herein) and an amount of Rs.29 lakhs to the said first informant. The Court of Sessions fixed a date as 22nd December, 2009 as an outer limit for making payments in accordance with the said condition. The applicant did not pay the amounts within the time stipulated by the Court of Sessions and sought extension of time for making the payments, wh...
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Vs. Shri Ramgopal Son of Bali ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. This civil revision application challenges the order dated 29-10-2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dharni, rejecting the objection filed by the applicant/defendant regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Dharni to entertain, try and decide Regular Civil Suit No.21 of 2010 claiming the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in the mandatory form. 3. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/plaintiff, has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this civil revision application. He submits that if this civil revision application is allowed by this Court, then the proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No.21 of 2010 pending before the Trial Court would not be finally disposed of, as contemplated by the proviso to Section 115(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. According to him, at the most, this Court w...
Sayyed Tareque Ali Vs. Sayyad Maidi Salami.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
O R A L J U D G M E N T : 1 Shri S.S.Kingaonkar, advocate has filed Vakalatnama for respondent no.2 and also affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent no.2 and same are taken on record. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing. Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 3 Respondent no.2 is present in person before the court and he admitted the contents of the affidavit in reply filed by him and categorically stated that he does not wish to prosecute the matter any further. 4 The applicant has filed the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 768 of 2011, registered on the basis of the First Information Report i.e. C.R. No. 272 of 2010 with the City Chowk police station, Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside. 5 The applicant contends th...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »