Mumbai Court September 2011 Judgments
Ms. Metafield Coil Pvt.Ltd Vs. Through Its Director Shri Sanjay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
JUDGMENT. : 1. Heard. Rule. With consent of parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court is invested with the powers under order 18 rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) to direct the the defendant to begin with the trial by leading evidence on their part. 3. The petitioner/ original defendant is raising exception to the order passed below Exh.77 in Special Civil Suit No.204/2001 decided on 17th August 2009 whereby, the trial Court allowed the application tendered by the plaintiff seeking direction against the defendant to begin with the trial by leading evidence on their part. In Special Civil Suit No.204/2001 instituted by the plaintiff, the following prayers are made: a) It be declared that the Defendants have encroached upon the suit land as shown on the sketch annexed to the Plaint on Gut No.211. b) It be further declared that the work of construction carried out on G...
Tag this Judgment!Saregama India Limited Vs. Mahal Pictures Private Limited.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
JUDGMENT. : 1. Heard arguments advanced by Shri Rahul Chitnis, counsel appearing for the the petitioner. None appears for the respondents though served. 2. By this revision application the petitioner is taking exception to the order passed by Judge, City Civil Court in S.C.Suit No. 3740/2000 decided on 8th January 2002. This revision application is filed by original defendant No.3 who is holder of sole and exclusive musical recording rights in respect of several films including Pakeezah those have been assigned in favour of the petitioner- company by the original producer/ copyright owner viz. respondent No.1/ original plaintiff under the agreement dated 13th February 1971. According to defendant No.3, the rights held by the company are sole and exclusive and in perpetuity. The defendant No.3 exploited ownership rights in respect of music of the film Pakeezah by making cassettes, records, VCDs etc. without there being any objection from the original plaintiff. The original plaintiff wa...
Tag this Judgment!Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd. Through Authorized Representative Vs. Idbi B ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
S.B. Mhase, President: Heard Mrs. Aarti Bhide-Advocate for the complainant. Complainant Kamat Hotels India Ltd. is a Public limited company. There was another company by name M/s.Himco (India) Ltd. which was amalgamated in the complainant company by order of the High Court dated 09/12/2005. Said M/s.Himco (India) Ltd. company had invested an amount of `20 lakhs with the opponent under Deep Discount Bond (99-B) Scheme thereby purchasing 400 numbers of IDBI Deep Discount Bonds. Each bond was for `5000/- and it was taken on 11/09/1999. These bonds were listed on the stocks and, therefore, they were running a market risk after fluctuating NAV. After the amalgamation, these bonds have been given to the complainant and since the price of the said bonds has not been released, consumer complaint is filed. Basically, complainant is in the business of Hotels and their main business is providing service of hospitability by running a chain of hotels in the Maharashtra. M/s.Himco (India) Ltd. was a...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs. Smt Jayashree Subhash Swadi
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 28/07/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.271/2007; Smt.Jayashree Subhash Swadi V/s. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (herein after referred as forum for brevity). It is a case of repudiation of the mediclaim on the ground of pre-existing disease. The forum overruled the contention of the Insurance company and awarded the claim as confined to the actual medical expenses and disallowing the claim for expenses of taxi. Point of limitation was also raised but the forum held that the consumer complaint was not barred by limitation. Feeling aggrieved thereby, opponent /Insurance company (herein after referred as Insurance company) filed this appeal. Heard both the sides. In the instance case holding the reference date as final repudiation of the insurance claim, the forum held that the consumer complaint is not barred by limitation ...
Tag this Judgment!The Balasaheb Satbhai Merchant Coop Bank Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. By this application, the applicant has prayed to quash the orders dated 16.07.2008 and 23.10.2008 passed by JMFC, Kopargaon granting regular bail in favour of respondents No.3 to12. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. Admittedly, respondent No.3 was the Chairman and respondents No.4 to 10 and 12 were the Members of the Managing Committee of applicant Bank whereas respondent No.11 was the Manager of the said Bank. As certain irregularities and illegalities were noticed in the conduct of the banking business, the Reserve {4} Cri. Application No.3362/2009Bank of India had cancelled the license of the applicant bank. Thereafter, District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, had appointed Liquidator on the applicant bank to look after the affairs of the said bank. One Mr.N.K.Ingole (Government Auditor) had carried out the audit of the said bank for the period 1996 to 2002. Du...
Tag this Judgment!Niraj Vikas Pabale and ors. Vs. the Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. This writ petition is entertained as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as per the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 30/10/2007. Briefly stated, the grievance is about an activity in the shape of an educational institute and a students hostel in residential area. It is alleged that the construction is raised without legal sanction from the competent authority. Respondent No. 5 before this Court is that institute while Respondent No. 4 is the Gram Panchayat which claims to have sanctioned the same under Section 52 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act,1958, (hereinafter referred to as "the 1958 Act" for short). Respondent no. 6 is the Zilla Parishad which can control/suspend actions/resolutions passed by Gram Panchayat in this respect. At one time it was the stand of authorities that Standardized building bye laws for B and C class municipal councils prescribed under Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats And Industrial Townships Act (40 of 1965) needed to be followed (...
Tag this Judgment!Maroti S/O Domaji Sadmake Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. The accused, who has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for further period of six months, has filed this appeal. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is as follows :- (i) The prosecutrix, aged about 12 years, was a student of 4th standard in Bhagvantrao Ashram Shala, Gatta, and was residing in the hostel of that school. The accused was In-charge Head Master of the said school at the relevant time. The examination of 4th standard was over. Some students had returned back home but some including the prosecutrix were still in the hostel. (ii) On 16/4/1996 at about 8.00 p.m. the prosecutrix had gone out of the hostel premises for answering the nature's call. She had requested her two friends to accompany her but the accused told her to go alone. (iii) While the prosecutrix was returning back,...
Tag this Judgment!Pix Transmissions Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. The petitioner-employer has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of Reference dated 21.1.2010 passed by respondent no. 2 and referring the controversy to the Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur. The said Reference as reproduced in Schedule appended to the order dated 21.1.2010 is reproduced below : "Whether the members of Maharashtra General Kamgar Union working in M/s General Manager, Pix Transmission Limited, J-7, MIDC, Nagpur are entitled for payment of minimum wages as per notification dated 16.4.2007 with arrears ?" 2. The challenge raised is basically on the ground that entire controversy as presented to respondent no. 2 has not been placed for consideration before the Industrial Court and petitioner/employer is, therefore, precluded from pointing out that the demand of minimum wages as raised is itself erroneous and misconceived. It is further urged that as wages are being paid at a rate which is more than the rate of minimum...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh S/O Danchand Waswani Vs. Yusufbhai Mukhtar Amir Varawalla
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. The tenant has questioned order dated 02.05.2011 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 434/2011 and the judgment dated 28.02.2011 in Writ Petition No.132/2011, delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Writ Petition was filed by the appellant / tenant challenging concurrent judgments and decrees of his eviction passed by the Small Causes Court, under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1999 Act" for short) and the Appellate Court confirming it. The learned Single Judge accepted the contentions of tenant that both the Courts below have not considered whether partial eviction of tenant from premises would meet the needs of respondent / landlord. This requirement of Section 16[2] of the 1999 Act, is found to be not satisfied, hence the matter came to be remanded to the Appellate Court for recording additional evidence, if any, and to decide it after giving parties due opportunity. 2. This judgment dated 28.02.2011 was then questioned in Misc. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Balasaheb Satbhai Merchant Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. By this application, the applicant has prayed to quash the orders dated 16.07.2008 and 23.10.2008 passed by JMFC, Kopargaon granting regular bail in favour of respondents No.3 to12. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. Admittedly, respondent No.3 was the Chairman and respondents No.4 to 10 and 12 were the Members of the Managing Committee of applicant Bank whereas respondent No.11 was the Manager of the said Bank. As certain irregularities and illegalities were noticed in the conduct of the banking business, the Reserve Bank of India had cancelled the license of the applicant bank. Thereafter, District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, had appointed Liquidator on the applicant bank to look after the affairs of the said bank. One Mr.N.K.Ingole (Government Auditor) had carried out the audit of the said bank for the period 1996 to 2002. During the said audit, certain illegalities, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »