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 Rajesh Ganeshmal Oswal Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. The applicant was the accused no.4 in Regular Criminal Case No.110 of 2008 which was decided by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Railway Court, Pune. The allegation against the applicant was that, he had committed an offence punishable under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the other three accused i.e. Accused no.1 Sandeep, Accused No.2 Harish and Accused no.3 Nilesh was that they had committed an offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 34 of the IPC. The trial resulted in conviction of all the accused, including the applicant. The Magistrate sentenced all the accused - including the applicant to suffer RI for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to suffer SI for one month. 2. The applicant filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions, challenging his conviction and the sentence as imposed by the learned Magistrate. The Addl. Sessions Judge Pune, who heard the appeal, how...
Sms Formulations Private Limited and Another Vs. Sahib Singh Agencies ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
The plaintiff No.2 is a partnership firm and a sister concern of plaintiff No.1 which is a private limited company. The plaintiff No.1 is manufacturing medicinal products under the licence of plaintiff No.2. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit claiming that their registered trademark “IBULMOL” bearing No.999809 in class5 has been infringed by the defendants by manufacturing the product under the trademark “IBUNMOL”. The plaintiffs have also prayed for an order restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling their product by passing it of as that of the plaintiffs' product. The plaintiffs have also taken out notice of motion for an injunction during the pendency of the suit restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs' product and passing of their product as that of the plaintiffs' product. The plaintiffs had also moved this Court for ad-interim order. This Court vide order dated 22nd June 2006 granted ad-interim relief in terms of pr...
M/S. Goa Shipyard Limited Vs. Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant/complainant takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 23rd July, 2008, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Vasco-da-Gama, Goa whereby the complaint against the accused has been dismissed and the accused acquitted. 2. The complainant filed the above referred complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging that the accused who was working as in-charge of complainant's Liaison Office at New Delhi had not accounted for Rs. 2,49,774=83. Process was issued against the accused and substance of accusation was explained to the accused on 23.4.2007. 3. In Criminal Case No.99/N/2002/B, the complainant examined three witnesses, namely PW. 1 Ram Asur, PW.2 Srinivas Samavedam and PW.3 Sunil Prasad Yadav. Besides, the oral evidence of the three witnesses, the complainant also tendered voluminous documents to prove the offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act. 4. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P....
Vithal Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Divisional Joint Re ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
1 Rule. Learned Counsel waive service on behalf of respective Respondents. By consent of the learned Counsel, rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petition is heard finally. 2 The Petition impugns an order-cum-show cause notice dated 9.11.2011 of the Respondent No.2-Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, K- West Ward, Mumbai and the order dated 17.1.2012 of the Respondent No.1-Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division, passed in Revision, wherein the aforesaid order-cum-show notice dated 9.11.2011 of the Respondent No.2-Deputy Registrar was subjected to challenge. 3 The relevant portion of the impugned order-cum-show cause notice dated 9.11.2011 of the Deputy Registrar reads as under: “Whereas, out of 9 Managing Committee members who got elected in the year 2006, 7 Managing Committee members who are functioning as of today, committed default in not executing Bonds as per rule 58-A of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. And therefore, as...
Mohandas I. Chatlani of Mumbai Vs. Varad L. Ullal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
Oral Judgment: By the above Summons for Judgment, the plaintiff has prayed for judgment to be entered in favour of the plaintiff in the suit against the defendant in the sum of Rs.72,68,750/- as more particularly set out in the particulars of claim together with further interest on the principal sum of Rs.50 lacs at the rate of 16.5% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till payment and/or realization and costs of the suit. 2. The suit has been filed on the basis of written contracts dated 26 June 2006 and 8 February 2007 between the plaintiff and the defendant. 3. According to the plaintiff, during the period between 31 May 2006 and 27 November 2006 plaintiff had given advance of Rs. 50 lacs to the defendants as set out in the plaint by various cheques which were issued in favour of the defendant and were credited to his account and debited to the account of the plaintiff. On 26 June 2006 collateral agreement came to be entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. It was...
Shree Ganesh Chemicals Vs. M/S. Virdev Intermediates Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
Oral Order: By this summons for judgment, plaintiff prays that the judgment be entered in this suit against the defendant for Rs.6,95,903/-. The Plaintiff has filed a suit on the basis of invoice dated 28th January, 2006 (Exh. A to the plaint). According to the plaintiff, pursuant to the purchase order issued by the defendant, the Plaintiff supplied diverse quantities of goods to the defendant at its Surat address. Defendant received the said goods on 29th January 2006 and did not raise any objection as to the rate, quality or quantity of the said goods including bills/invoices. According to plaintiff, defendant was liable to make payment at Mumbai. Plaintiff issued invoice on 28th January 2006. The due date for payment, according to the said invoice was 29th March, 2006. 2. On 25th March, 2009 plaintiff called upon defendant to make payment of Rs.4,04,595/- with interest of Rs.4,36,962/-. The defendant through its advocate replied to the said notice dated 25th March, 2009 and vaguely ...
Gurdeepsingh S/O Surjitsingh Chabda Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Thro ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
Oral Judgment:- 1. Heard. Perused records. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by mutual consent. 4. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 05/03/2012 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, (Head quarters) Police Commissionerate, Aurangabad pursuant to the notice No. 11214 dated 25/08/2011 to show cause against the proposed cancellation of the eating house registration No. CP/AG/163/I of Hotel Ding Dong, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. According to the petitioner, eating house registration in respect of hotel Ding Dong at Aurangabad was granted to him in the year 1993 and the registration was renewed from time to time till it was cancelled by Dy. Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad by the impugned order. The petitioner submits that the cancellation of the said registration is in violation of principles of natural justice, in as much as show cause notice dated 25/08/2011 made no reference to the alleged breaches or lapses on his part as mentioned in the im...
Shri Andre Bibiano Furtado Vs. Shri Norberto Mascarenhas (Deceased), T ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
This is plaintiff's second appeal. 2. Plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 17/1997/B for demarcation of southern boundary line of the suit property, by appointing Head Surveyor of the Survey Department, to do the same. The plaintiff had also sought permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from constructing compound wall on the southern boundary of the suit property or encroaching upon the suit property. The original defendant died during pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record. 3. Plaintiff's case, in short, was as follows:- He is the owner in possession of the suit property known as “Borimollacodil Moddi” situated at Borimol in Quepem Taluka, being bounded on the east and north by Municipal road; on the west by the property of Carlos Mascarenhas, under survey no. 57/1 and on the south by the property bearing survey no. 56/1, which belongs to the defendants. The suit property bears survey no. 57/2. It was allotted to the plaint...
Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. M/S. Vijay Automotive Services Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
The Petitioners have challenged the Award dated 25 June 2009, passed by the sole Arbitrator appointed under the Agreement between the parties. The operative part of the Award is as under: “1 The termination of dealership of claimant is quashed and set aside; 2 Respondent is directed to restore the dealership and also to execute fresh dealership agreement for resited location.” 2 Based upon Agreement dated 20 February 1974, the Respondent was appointed as dealer for the purpose of selling the petrol and petroleum products of the Petitioners. The business was not as per the mark. The sales were zero. Inspite of regular discussion and follow up, the position was not improved. A show cause notice dated 8 March 2005 was issued. There was no reply. Another show cause notice dated 24 May 2005 was also issued. By reply/letter dated 15 July 2005 the Respondent gave assurance, but expressed that due to financial problems, the petrol pump was closed. The reply was not satisfactory. Th...
Shri Rajesh Ganeshmal Oswal Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. The applicant was the accused no.4 in Regular Criminal Case No.110 of 2008 which was decided by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Railway Court, Pune. The allegation against the applicant was that, he had committed an offence punishable under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the other three accused i.e. Accused no.1 Sandeep, Accused No.2 Harish and Accused no.3 Nilesh was that they had committed an offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 34 of the IPC. The trial resulted in conviction of all the accused, including the applicant. The Magistrate sentenced all the accused including the applicant to suffer RI for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to suffer SI for one month. 2. The applicant filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions, challenging his conviction and the sentence as imposed by the learned Magistrate. The Addl. Sessions Judge Pune, who heard the appeal, however, u...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »