Mumbai Court August 2012 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 Upendra B. Karpe Vs. Revision Authority (Central Government), Gov ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. S. Kamat Malyekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no. 1 and Mr. M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. Rule, by consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 31.1.2011 passed by respondent no. 1 as well as communication dated 5.2.2001 addressed by respondent no. 3 to the predecessor in title of the petitioner rejecting renewal application filed by predecessor in title of the petitioner. The petitioner further seeks writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to consider the application dated 20.11.2006 for renewal of mining lease. Respondent no.1 has rejected the renewal application preferred by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals Act and Rule 54 of the Rules framed thereunder. The same has been dismissed by respondent no.1 by the impugned order dated 31.1.2011 primarily on the gr...
Shri Raul Po and Another Vs. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri S. Narvekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the respondent dated 17.05.2005 whereby the petitioners have been inter alia directed to demolish the disputed structure without any further notice. There are further directions issued by the respondent to forthwith disconnect the electricity and water supply to the said structure. 3. Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the petitioners have produced the material on record from the statutory Authority to disclose that the disputed structure was existing for more than 80 years. The learned Counsel further points out that the late father of the petitioners was even residing in the disputed structure for more than 75 years and that even he had sought for regularization of the sa...
Abdul Jamey S/O Abdul Salam Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
Deshmukh, J. 01. These are the three writ petitions among the same parties coming up for hearing. 02. Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1997 has been filed by petitioner Abdul Jamey praying for directions to respondents to treat him as a trained teacher in the primary school and to grant approval to his appointment accordingly, with further direction to grant and release salary in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 from 17.6.1995 and payment of arrears and also seeks a declaration of confirmation pursuant to Section 5(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "MEPS Act") and rules framed thereunder viz. The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter, referred to as "MEPS Rules"). 03. Petitioner appears to have been appointed by Respondent No.5-Management in Respondent No.6-School under an order dated 17.6.1995 in the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600. A proposal with regard to ...
Dilip S/O Ramrao Khedekar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
Oral Judgment: 1] Heard. 2] Taken up for final hearing by consent. 3] This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by 14 applicants, who questioned the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Chikhali, whereby the learned Magistrate while allowing the petition against these applicants directed that the complaint be forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a direction to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter accordingly. The complainant was directed to provide Marathi translation of the petition for the purpose of F.I.R. 4] Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that the learned Magistrate had no power to pass impugned order in view of Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the offences alleged were under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned Advocate also submitted that the learned Magistrate could have d...
LupIn Limited Vs. Johnson and Johnson
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
P.C.: The plaintiff company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling pharmaceutical products. The defendant company is also engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling of pharmaceutical products. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has independently conceived and adopted a distinctive mark “LUCYNTA” and registered it in class-5 of Fourth Schedule to the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 on 9th March 2012 from 20th August 2012. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant would be committing an act of infringement by using the impugned mark “NUCYNTA”. In this premises, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark “NUCYNTA” since it is infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark “LUCYNTA”. The plaintiff has also taken out notice of motion for certain reliefs during the pendency of the suit and also moved...
M/S. Videocon Industries Limited Vs. M/S Whirlpool of India Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
N.M. Jamdar, J. 1. The trial Court by the impugned order has restrained the appellant-defendant 'Videocon Industries Ltd., from marketing a certain design of washing machine. According to respondent-plaintiff M/s.Whirlpool India Ltd., the appellant M/s.Videocon Industries Limited has infringed the designs registered by M/s Whirlpool India Ltd. and is also guilty of passing off the said product. 2. The respondent M/s Whirlpool India Ltd (referred hereinafter as 'Whirlpool') filed suit bearing Suit (lodging) No.1675 of 2012 in this Court seeking an injunction invoking provisions of the Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') against appellant M/s Videocon Industries Pvt. Limited (hereinafter referred as 'Videocon'). 3. In the suit Whirlpool contended: It had registered two designs of washing machines on 15th July, 2009. The designs were registered for shape and configuration of washing machines in Class No.15-05. The designs were: (a) Design No.223833 filed on 15th ...
LupIn Limited Vs. Johnson and Johnson
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
P.C.: The plaintiff company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling pharmaceutical products. The defendant company is also engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling of pharmaceutical products. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has independently conceived and adopted a distinctive mark LUCYNTA and registered it in class-5 of Fourth Schedule to the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 on 9th March 2012 from 20th August 2012. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant would be committing an act of infringement by using the impugned mark NUCYNTA. In this premises, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark NUCYNTA since it is infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark LUCYNTA. The plaintiff has also taken out notice of motion for certain reliefs during the pendency of the suit and also moved this Court for grant of ad-interim orders. 2. As agains...
Lokesh Kirankumar Shah Vs. Shraddha Lokesh Shaha and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By consent, admitted and heard finally. 3. The applicant is the husband of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 has filed proceedings under the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Domestic Violence Act) in the Metropolitan Magistrates 27th Court at Mulund. By making an application under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the respondent no.1 prayed for several reliefs including the residence order, under section 19 of the said Act. The respondent no.1 also prayed for various interim reliefs. The learned Magistrate, by an order dated 25 November 2009 granted maintenance and relief towards medical expenditure to the respondent no.1, but declined to pass any order in respect of residence. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed another application, specifically praying for a residence order. She prayed that the present applicant and his relatives (respondents before the Magistrate) be restrained from entering in the mat...
M/S. Videocon Industries Limited Vs. M/S Whirlpool of India Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
N.M. Jamdar, J. 1. The trial Court by the impugned order has restrained the appellant-defendant 'Videocon Industries Ltd., from marketing a certain design of washing machine. According to respondent-plaintiff M/s.Whirlpool India Ltd., the appellant M/s.Videocon Industries Limited has infringed the designs registered by M/s Whirlpool India Ltd. and is also guilty of passing off the said product. 2. The respondent M/s Whirlpool India Ltd (referred hereinafter as 'Whirlpool') filed suit bearing Suit (lodging) No.1675 of 2012 in this Court seeking an injunction invoking provisions of the Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') against appellant M/s Videocon Industries Pvt. Limited (hereinafter referred as 'Videocon'). 3. In the suit Whirlpool contended: It had registered two designs of washing machines on 15th July, 2009. The designs were registered for shape and configuration of washing machines in Class No.15-05. The designs were: (a) Design No.223833 filed on 15th ...
Smt. Bhawna W/O Vijaykumar Sakhare Vs. Vijaykumar S/O Tarachand Sakhar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
Oral Judgment: (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.) By this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment passed by the Family Court, Nagpur on 02.07.2008 in Hindu Marriage Petition No.A-324/2006, granting a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-husband, thereby dissolving the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband. 2. Few facts giving rise to the appeal are stated thus :- A petition was filed by the respondent under Section 10 r/w Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for judicial separation or for grant of divorce. It was pleaded by the respondent that he was a qualified engineer working in a Public Sector Undertaking since 14 years. The respondent was married to the appellant on 25.05.2001 at S.C.Z.C.C. Lawns, Nagpur and the marriage was solemnized as per the rites and customs in Buddhists Community. After the solemnization of the marriage the respondent started residing with the petitioner. It is stated in the petition that within a few days of the marriag...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »