Mumbai Court July 2012 Judgments

Mrs. Nirmala Misquita Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Secretary of Educa ...

Court: Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4 is taken on record. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. This petition was filed challenging the appointments of respondents no.4, 5 and 6 as Principals of different schools run by respondent no.3. This Court on 15/09/2004, issued Rule only in respect of promotion of respondent no.4 as Headmaster. 4. As such, the petition filed by the petitioner challenging the promotions of respondents no.5 and 6 as Principals is deemed to have been rejected qua respondents nos.5 and 6. 5. Insofar as respondent no.4 is concerned, the relevant prayers sought by the petitioner are as under: “(c) A writ of certiorari or a writ in nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to quash and set aside the selection of respondent no.4 made by the Promotion Committee on 14/07/2003 and his consequential appointment vide letter dated 16/08/2003(Exh.J), made by the respondent no.3 in the post...

M/S. Whirpool of India Ltd. Vs. M/S. Videocon Industries Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

1. The plaintiff, who is the manufacturer of consumer products including washing machines, has approached this Court praying for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant who is also engaged in manufacture of consumer products including washing machines, from infringing plaintiffs' registered design Nos.223833 and 223835. The plaintiff has also claimed for damages on the ground that the defendant is passing of its product as the product of the plaintiff. 2. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has innovated a new product i.e. washing machine which has unique features inasmuch as on one side it is having a rectangular shape and on other side it is having semicircular shape with jettisoned panel for the knobs. It is the case of the plaintiff that its product vide design Nos.223833 and 223835 has been registered on 15th July 2009. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff has been producing the said product from September 2010. It is the case of the plainti...

Dhanpal Parisa Khot and Others Vs. Shamrao Vithal Cooperative Bank Ltd

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2012(3)LLN559

ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard both the parties and decided at the admission stage itself. All these Petitions heard finally by consent and can be disposed of by a common order as basic facts and the rival contentions on the issues are common in every aspect, except the name of concerned employee/Petitioner. The contesting Respondent is also common. 2. The challenge is made to the order dated 27th January, 2012, passed by the Ist Labour Court, Kolhapur, whereby rejected individual Applications filed under Section 33(c) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.D. Act”) for computation of alleged preferred monetary benefits from the Respondent Bank. 3. The Petitioners were employed by one Shri Mahavir Cooperative Bank Limited, Kolhapur (the Mahavir Bank) as employees. The service conditions of the employees in the Mahavir Bank, were governed by the settlement signed by the Bank with the Representative Union. The Mahavir Bank, vide resolution No.6 da...

M/S. Whirpool of India Ltd. Vs. M/S. Videocon Industries Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

1. The plaintiff, who is the manufacturer of consumer products including washing machines, has approached this Court praying for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant who is also engaged in manufacture of consumer products including washing machines, from infringing plaintiffs' registered design Nos.223833 and 223835. The plaintiff has also claimed for damages on the ground that the defendant is passing of its product as the product of the plaintiff. 2. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has innovated a new product i.e. washing machine which has unique features inasmuch as on one side it is having a rectangular shape and on other side it is having semicircular shape with jettisoned panel for the knobs. It is the case of the plaintiff that its product vide design Nos.223833 and 223835 has been registered on 15th July 2009. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff has been producing the said product from September 2010. It is the case of the plainti...

indus Engineering Co. a Sole Proprietary Firm Through Its Proprietor I ...

Court: Mumbai

1. The Petitioners Claimants have challenged impugned award dated 27 January 2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator appointed in view of the Arbitration clause provided in the agreement pertaining to the work of Supply and Transportation to site of imported D.I. Pipes and Specials for Variav R.W.S.S. Surat for Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board. 2. The Claimants prevented from performing the contract, as alleged; the Respondents refuted the same. Admittedly, the shipment did not take place. The non opening of letter of credit by the Respondents was another factor. The Claimants admittedly, received advance of Rs.60 lakhs, but quite late, as per the agreed time. There arose dispute. This Arbitration proceedings to resolve the same. 3. The first sole Arbitrator resigned on 19 May 2006. The present learned Arbitrator, entered upon the reference on 26 May 2006 and proceeded from the stage of evidence and arguments, based upon the material available on record, including written notes of ar...

The Commissioner Vs. Ashiven Manohar Chougule and Others

Court: Mumbai

Oral Judgment: Heard finally at the admission stage. As common issues are involved, therefore, this common judgment. 2 The Petitioner is a local body governed by the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), has challenged the impugned order dated 21st October, 2011, passed by the Industrial Court, Sangli. The operative part is as under: i. The applications for interim relief are partly allowed. ii. The opponent-corporation is directed to continue the applicants in service in accordance with the B.P.M.C. Act as per previous practice till the decision of these complaints finally. iii. No order as to cost. 3 In the main complaint the basic prayer is to grant them permanency as they completed more then 240 days in service. They have filed separate applications under Section 30 (2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act) for interim reliefs, for status-quo of thei...

Dhanpal Parisa Khot and Others Vs. Shamrao Vithal Cooperative Bank Ltd

Court: Mumbai

ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard both the parties and decided at the admission stage itself. All these Petitions heard finally by consent and can be disposed of by a common order as basic facts and the rival contentions on the issues are common in every aspect, except the name of concerned employee/Petitioner. The contesting Respondent is also common. 2. The challenge is made to the order dated 27th January, 2012, passed by the Ist Labour Court, Kolhapur, whereby rejected individual Applications filed under Section 33(c) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act) for computation of alleged preferred monetary benefits from the Respondent Bank. 3. The Petitioners were employed by one Shri Mahavir Cooperative Bank Limited, Kolhapur (the Mahavir Bank) as employees. The service conditions of the employees in the Mahavir Bank, were governed by the settlement signed by the Bank with the Representative Union. The Mahavir Bank, vide resolution No.6 dated 23rd Septe...

Devendra S. Doctor Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Court: Mumbai

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has essentially challenged the action of refusal to accord sanction to prosecute the Special Judge of the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, dated 3.2.2012, which decision is founded on the opinion of the learned Chief Justice of the High Court. 2. The decision is challenged on three grounds. Firstly, the Competent Authority for considering the proposal to grant sanction to prosecute the Special Judge of the Special Court, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), ought to be the Governor. Thus, the proposal could not have been terminated on the basis of the opinion of the learned Chief Justice of the High Court. Secondly, the learned Chief Justice has formed the impugned opinion without directing any enquiry in respect of the complaint against the Special Judge. Thirdly, the impugned opinion of the learned Ch...

Zarina @ Taushida Latif Qureshi Vs. Dilip Modji Donakia and Another

Court: Mumbai

Oral Order: The Petitioner has filed this Petition for revocation of the probate granted in favour of Respondent No.1 on 4th September 2009 in Testamentary Petition No.577 of 2009. The probate has been granted of the last Will and testament of Madhuben Sadhusingh Agarwal executed on 12th January 2008. 2. The Petitioner claims that she is an heir and legal representative of the deceased who was not served with the citation. 3. The Petitioner has also claimed that the Will of the deceased has been fabricated and forged. The Petitioner has given various instances to show how it is forged and fabricated. Those would be gone into only after the Petitioner can establish her relationship with the deceased to show that she was the heir and legal representative of the deceased. If that is not shown, the Petitioner would have no locus to claim revocation of the probate. 4. The Petitioner has set out her relationship with the deceased to show how she is an heir and legal representative of the dec...

Mrs. Nirmala Misquita Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Secretary of Educa ...

Court: Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4 is taken on record. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. This petition was filed challenging the appointments of respondents no.4, 5 and 6 as Principals of different schools run by respondent no.3. This Court on 15/09/2004, issued Rule only in respect of promotion of respondent no.4 as Headmaster. 4. As such, the petition filed by the petitioner challenging the promotions of respondents no.5 and 6 as Principals is deemed to have been rejected qua respondents nos.5 and 6. 5. Insofar as respondent no.4 is concerned, the relevant prayers sought by the petitioner are as under: (c) A writ of certiorari or a writ in nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to quash and set aside the selection of respondent no.4 made by the Promotion Committee on 14/07/2003 and his consequential appointment vide letter dated 16/08/2003(Exh.J), made by the respondent no.3 in the post of Pri...