Mumbai Court December 2013 Judgments

Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner Vs. the Sta ...

Court: Mumbai Aurangabad

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Petitioner Municipal Corporation a local authority constituted and functioning under the Bombay (Maharashtra) Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, ( hereafter 1949 Act and earlier known as Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act) in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has sought the following reliefs:- i) a direction or writ to restrain the Respondents from developing the final plot no.194 located at Scheme 3 known as Wadia Park in derogation of the government resolution dated 8.2.2002 and Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966, hereafter referred to as 1966 Act. ( prayer A in writ petition) ii) to restore said final plot in possession of Petitioner. (Prayer B) iii) to demolish the shopping plazas i.e. buildings A and B or to hand over those buildings to Petitioner for putting it to permissible use. (Prayer B1) iv) to restrain the Respondents or those claiming through them form putting the shopping plaza A and B or t...

Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Home Aff ...

Court: Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) The petition challenges the order dated 16.04.2006 passed by the respondent no.4 vide which the petitioner has been held to be guilty of charge no.2 and thereby punishment for compulsory retirement from services with full pensionary benefits with effect from 16.04.2006 has been imposed against the petitioner and the order dated 22.01.2007 passed by respondent no.2 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the petition are as under: The petitioner was serving in Central Industrial Security Force as a constable. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted at Mormugao Port Trust. On the relevant date i.e. on 30.10.2005 the petitioner was posted at Chowgule gate which is an inner gate to regulate the traffic and normally dock entry permits are not checked at that gate. It is not in dispute that there is a main gate to enter inside the port, which is the gate at which the entry permits are checked....

Court: Mumbai Aurangabad

RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and heard the respective advocates. 3. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act. Respondent No.1 is the Department of Cooperation, State of Maharashtra. Respondent No.2 is the Cooperative Bank and a Secured Creditor which has taken possession of the assets of borrower the Ghrushneshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., under the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act). It then issued the tender for the sale of movable and immovable assets of the said Karkhana. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has its Regional Office at Aurangabad. The said Bank had given loan to the Ghrushneshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Khatnapur, Tal. Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. (Hereinafter referred to as the G.S.S.K.L.). G.S.S.K.L. went into...

Sunil Kumar Patodia Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal - Ii âandeuro;andldqu ...

Court: Mumbai

1. The petitioner is one of the directors of respondent No.3 Company who has committed defaults in repaying loans / credit facilities to the tune of about Rs 25.25 Crores granted by respondent No.2 bank. 1.1 The petitioner is also one of the guarantors. 1.2 This petition is preferred against order dated 22.10.2013 in S.A. No. 77 of 2013 passed by the Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the œlearned Tribunal) whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the said S.A. No. 77 of 2013 holding, inter alia, that the application is not maintainable before learned Tribunal at Ahmedabad. Learned Tribunal has observed and held, inter alia, that:- 5. On bare reading the above noted provisions of Section 19(1), I am of the opinion that, Ld. DRT-I Kolkata and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court have had only jurisdiction to try this SA.? 2. In the said order dated 22.10.2013 learned Tribunal has further observed and held that:- œ6. Therefore with ought most re...

Domingos A. Fernandes Vs. Baptista Sao Francisco Fernandes and Others

Court: Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Lobo, learned Counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner and Mr. Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1. Respondents no. 2 to 12 are absent, though duly served. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 17/10/2012 passed by the Deputy Collector and S.D.O., Pernem in Case No. DCP/TNC/REV/1-14/10. 4. The petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 45/2005 against the respondents, for declaration and injunction. In the said suit, the issue no. 4 was as under : Whether the plaintiff proves that he is a tenant of the entire suit property bearing Survey No. 272/10 of village Mandrem, Taluka Pernem ? The issues were initially framed on 30/06/2007 and stood modified after the order dated 22/02/2011 and again on 18/10/2011. The issue no. 4 was referred to the Mamlatdar in terms of the provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural...

Ganesh Bandu Badgujar Vs. Mangalabai Ashokbhai Patel and Another

Court: Mumbai Aurangabad

Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The applicant is the original accused. He was being prosecuted on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent no.1 herein, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On 8-11-2010, the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Jalgaon, passed an order acquitting the applicant, as contemplated under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short, "the Code"]. Against the said order of acquittal, the respondent no.1 herein i.e. the original complainant filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions. This appeal was dealt with and allowed by an Additional Sessions Judge. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the appellate court, the original accused has approached this Court by filing the present Revision Application. 3. Clearly, the appeal filed before the Court of Sessions was not at all maintainable. It appea...

Surendra K. Kambli and Another Vs. Bhandari Co-op.Bank Ltd. and Others

Court: Mumbai

S.C. Gupte, J. The Petitioners, who are members and shareholders of the First Respondent Bank, have challenged the order passed by Reserve Bank of India and confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, Department of Economic Affairs, cancelling the banking licence of the First Respondent Bank, in this writ petition. 2 The First Respondent is established as a co-operative bank under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (MCS Act). It held a banking licence issued by Reserve Bank of India. The Managing Committee of the First Respondent committed various irregularities. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies initiated action under Section 88 of the MSC Act against the Managing Committee members of the First Respondent for the loss caused to the bank due to their negligence and sanctioning of bogus loans. F.I.Rs. were registered against the Managing Committee members under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. In these circ...

Milind Shriram Limaye Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Court: Mumbai

Oral Judgment: (S.C. Gupte, J.) 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent, the Petition is taken up final hearing. 2. By this Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 11 July 2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Administration), Pune, refusing to grant exemption from requirements of Suitability Certificate for the Rummy competition performances to be organized by the Petitioner or in the alternative, seeks issuance of a Suitability Certificate under the applicable licensing rules. 3. The Petitioner is an entrepreneur and founder of an association known as Competitive Tournament Rummy Players Association (CTRPA for short). CTRPA is a registered public trust. It is the case of the Petitioner that CTRPA is formed with an object to rectify procedural fallacies in the prevalent practices of the card game of Rummy and provide a healthy competition alternative of the game as a game of skill. CTRPA has prepared ...

Sau. Pritikiran Rajendra Katole Vs. Sau. Harsha Ravindra Katole

Court: Mumbai

Oral Judgment: Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2 The Appellant Defendant has challenged order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the District Judge-5, Pune, whereby the Respondent's/Plaintiff's Application is allowed in a suit for perpetual injunction filed against them. 3 The operative part of the order is as under: 1) Application is allowed. 2) The respondent no. 1 to 3, their agents, servants, representatives and others claiming through them, are hereby temporarily restrained from using the registered trademark of Godwa Krushi Prakashan and Godwa publication, along with other literature and label, till the decision of the suit, in breach of registered trademark of the applicant. 3) Costs in cause. 4 Admittedly both the parties have registered the trademark by using the first word Godwa. The word Godwa is a common parlance dictionary word in Marathi which means sweetness. The following is the chart which shows the respective registration and the dates on which the trad...

Bento Antonio Gomes Alias Antonio Bento Gomes Vs. Rosario Salvador Car ...

Court: Mumbai Goa

The Second Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 19th January, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court (I), South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.83/2002 thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No.196/90/D dated 19th March, 2002. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under: The suit came to be filed by the present appellant contending therein that they are the owners in possession of property known as 'Predio Mixto' or 'Mandopa' situated at Mandopa of Nevelim village, Salcete-Goa bearing Land Registration No.44875 of Book B New and enrolled under Land Revenue No.915 (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'). It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is bounded on South by the property of the defendants. The property of the defendants is known as 'Mandopa' and bears Land Registration No.35290 of Book B-91 New a...