Mumbai Court December 2013 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.
The State of Maharashtra, (Through Lcb, Latur) Vs. Sayyad Abdulhak Say ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-16-2013
Oral Order: 1. All the three applications are filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of the Court of Sessions, Latur. The first proceeding is filed against Sayyad Abdulhak Sayyad Khaja, who had filed Application No.193 of 2012 in Sessions Court. The second proceeding is filed as against Accused Ramesh Malikarjun Swami, Santosh Gundappa Kalshetti and Jahangir Babumiya Bhalke, who had filed Application No.233 of 2012 in Sessions Court and the last proceeding is filed against Accused Ismile Ibrahim Khan, who had filed Application No.223 of 2012. 2. Both the sides are heard. This Court has perused the record. 3. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by one Police Naik, Sanjay Wasant Kale. He was attached to Anti Terrorist Squad of the Special Branch, Latur. On 25th April, 2012, this squad received secrete information that one Abdullah, Respondent from proceeding No.5317 of 2012 wa...
Municipal Council Vs. Bhanudas Jayawanta Sonawane
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-16-2013
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Petitioner is challenging the award dtd. 18/01/2012 passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad in Ref. (I.D.A.) No.12 of 2001. 3. Contention of the petitioner is as under:- (a) Respondent was working on daily wages from 03/08/1990 till 16/07/1996. (b) Respondent was orally terminated. (c) A reference bearing Ref. I. D. A. No. 12/2001 came to be registered before the Labour Court, Aurangabad. (d) The petitioner, by inadvertence and oversight, did not even appoint an advocate to contest the said proceeding. (e) The award delivered on 18/01/2012 is therefore an exparte award. (f) No effort was made to have the Award set aside within 30 days of its publication. (g) The respondent is still not reinstated in employment. (h) Issue involves public employment and therefore a proper hearing needs to be given Lest there would be a miscarriage of justice. (i) If reasonable costs are awarded and the matter is remand...
Dasharath Bhaguji Jadhav and Others Vs. Kisan Bhaguji Jadhav and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2013
In the above Petition, Rule came to be issued on 29th October, 2013 and the above Petition was directed to be placed on 18th November, 2013 for hearing as to interim reliefs. The above Petition had come up for hearing as to interim reliefs on 29th November, 2013 when it was adjourned to 10th December, 2013 at the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. However, on 12th December, 2013, the learned Counsel agreed that instead of the parties being heard on interim reliefs, the Petition itself be heard finally. That is how by the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties the Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2) The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 30th April, 2013 passed by the learned District JudgeI, Pune, by which order the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal being No.85 of 2013 filed by the Petitioners i.e. the original Plaintiffs came to be dismissed and resultantly the order...
Smt. Ida Berta Dos Remedios Cunha E Gomes (Since Deceased) and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-13-2013
Heard Mr. Thali, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, Ms. Razaq, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 3, Mr. Agha, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no. 2, 4 and 5 and Mr. Almeida, learned Counsel for respondents no. 7, 8 and 9. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service of notice. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 02/04/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco Da Gama in Special Civil Suit No. 65/97/B. 4. The said Special Civil Suit No. 65/97/B has been filed by the respondent no. 6, since deceased, now through his legal representatives namely the respondents no. 7 to 9, for declaration and consequential reliefs. The petitioners are the defendants no. 4, 5 and 6; respondent no. 1 is the defendant no.1; respondent no. 2 is the defendant no. 2; respondent no. 3 is the def...
Prakash Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. S.R.K. Products Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2013
1 The Appellant-Original Plaintiff has challenged order dated 15 December 2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune whereby dismissed the application for injunction restraining the Respondent-Defendant from infringing the Appellant's registered trade mark SAMRAT. The dispute is therefore with regard to the word-mark SAMRAT. 2 The Appellant is a Company engaged in carrying business of manufacturing, distribution and marketing Besan, Pulses, Wheat, Flour and preparations made from Cereals, Rava, Maida, Atta and other products in the trade since 1983. They got registered trade mark SAMRAT in relation to the said goods in class 30 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (for short the Act). They made an application for renewal with new identity and label with distinct features of food products and a device of a lady in the year 2007. The Appellant is also holder and registered proprietor of the original artistic work under the mark SAMRAT under the Copyright Act, 1957. 3 The Respondent-Defen...
The Bank of New York Mellon, London Branch Vs. Zenith Infotech Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2013
1. By this Company Petition, the Petitioner seeks winding up of Zenith Infotech Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company), which was incorporated on 31st December, 1996, under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (No.1 of 1956) (the Act). The Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present Petition are as under: 3. The Petitioner is a US National Banking Corporation, having its Office at the address given in the cause title of the Petition. The Petitioner is engaged, inter alia, in the business of providing corporate trustee services. The main object for which the Company was incorporated is to inter alia carry on the business of manufacturers and sellers of all kinds of electronic and electrical equipment and machinery including computers, data loggers, process controllers, geophysical and communication instruments, ultrasonic and microwave devices, etc. 4. The Petitioner has stated in the Petition filed on 21st Decemb...
Kedarnath Ramdayal Bang and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra Throug ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-13-2013
A.H. Joshi, J. 1) Heard both sides on different dates and at length. 2) The appellants were allowed to substitute the bunch of annexures by arranging those in sequence and by placing additional annexures on record. While deciding this appeal, we have referred to the paper book in which substituted bunch of annexures is on record. FACTS, DATES AND EVENTS. 3) It would be useful to refer to the events as they arose in sequence of dates. Those are as follows:-Sr. No.Dates and Particulars of event1The appellants, respondent No.6 and intervenors are depositors of respondent No. 5. They had deposited their money with the respondent No.5 society. The intervenors are supporting the action of the amalgamation of respondent No.5 in the respondent No.4 society. It is alleged that after amalgamation, said deposits have been renewed by the respondent No.4 society.2The area of operation of the respondent No.5 is District Ahmednagar. It was running into losses. The money of depositors of the responden...
Khairunissa Vs. Anwar Khan Samdullah Khan, Since Deceased, Through Leg ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2013
Oral Order: The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the Judgment and order dated 10th December, 1998 passed by the Bench of two learned Judges of the Small Causes Court, by which order the Appeal in question being Appeal No. 313 of 1998 filed by the Respondent herein i.e. the original defendant came to be allowed and the Decree passed by the Trial Court came to be set aside and the Suit came to be remanded to the Trial Court to be proceeded further from the stage of cross-examination. 2) The challenge in the above Petition is to remand of the Suit in question to the Trial Court made on the basis of the observations in Paragraph No. 32 and 33 of the impugned Judgment and order, wherein the Bench of two Judges of the Small Causes Court (Appellate Bench for short) held that the Defendant must be given an opportunity to meet his case at the trial stage. This was in the context of the fact that the Defendant's defences were struck of in the Suit in question. 3) The facts nece...
Gujarat Public Service Commission Vs. Dhanjibhai Savjibhai Maru and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2013
CAV Judgement Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. These two Letters Patent Appeals were heard together as the question involved in both the appeals was similar. 2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 550 is at the instance of Gujarat Public Service Commission, [GPSC hereafter], and is directed against judgment dated 3rd October 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7904 of 2000 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ-petition by setting aside the communication dated 17th February 1998 issued by the appellant by which the candidature of the writ-petitioner for being considered for appointment to the cadre of Gujarat Education Services Class-II (Administrative Branch) was refused, with a direction upon the appellant GPSC to call for interview for being considered for appointment to the above cadre pursuant to advertisement dated 3rd October 1995 published in newspaper on 1st November 1995. 2.2 The other appeal being LPA No. 624 of 2013 is also at t...
Riva Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-12-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court, praying for quashing and setting aside of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as the said Act) 3. Petitioner No.1 is owner of the property bearing Survey No. 277/2 (part) of Village Mandrem of Pernem Taluka. A notification dated 19th August, 2011 came to be issued under Section 4 of the said Act, intending to acquire the land along with other lands, for the public purpose of construction of sports village at Mandrem. 4. The petitioners, along with others, had submitted their objections under Section 5-A of the said Act. The Land Acquisition Officer subsequently submitted a report to the State Government under Section 5-A. According to the petitioners, Section 6 notification came to be published after a period of one year from the last publication of Section 4 inasmuch as a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »