Mumbai Court February 2013 Judgments
Godrej Consumer Products Limited Vs. Alchemy Biotech Private Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an action for infringement of trade mark and passing off committed by the Defendant by using almost identical and/or similar trade mark EASY WASH upon and in relation to liquid detergent. The Plaintiff is a company established under the Companies Act, 1956 and is the present (subsequent) proprietor of the trade mark EZEE registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 under Nos.410491 and 513930 both in class 03 in respect of detergents in liquid form for laundry use and soaps, detergents, toilet preparations and scouring powder. 2. The Defendant is a private limited company, having its office at Doshi Gardens, D Block, 3 and 4, 2nd Floor, 74, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026. The Plaintiffs further claims that the Defendant also carries on the business inter alia as manufacturer of and/or trading in detergents including liquid detergent, cosmetics and the like goods under the impugned trade mark EASY WASH and is committing the wrongful acts...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Sitaram and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. On 4th October, 2000, learned 2nd Joint JMFC, Hingoli in RCC No.84/1994, acquitted Respondent Nos.1 to 3 for offence under Sections 435 and 429 r/w 34 of IPC. The State feels aggrieved by the same. 2. The appeal was admitted on 25th June, 2003 and action under Section 390 Cr.P.C. was directed. 3. Perusal of the judgment and record illustrate, there was long-drawn litigation between the accused and the complainant and his associates. Though PW No.1 was claiming to be an eyewitness, however, the learned Judge observed, his evidence to be an interested witness and doubtful. The learned Judge did not rely to the evidence of PW No.3 Sitaram. It was pointed out and not refuted that PW No.1, PW No.2 and PW No.3 were convicted in criminal case filed by the accused. Consequently, wrath and vengeance in the mind of the complainant saw its resultant in filing the prosecution referred above. Analysis of the evidence carried by the learned Judge was one of the possible view, w...
Tag this Judgment!Sagar Shantaram Patil Vs. the North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon. T ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned Advocate for the parties. 2] The petition is ready for hearing as the affidavit in reply of the contesting respondent no.1 is already filed. 3] Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned AGP for the respondent nos.1 and 3 and the learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 at length. 4] The case proceeds in following admitted background: [a] The petitioner has passed the degree examination of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical). He has secured 59.91% marks in aggregate of four years performance. [b] The class at the degree level is determined on the basis of marks secured at B.E. Final examination and accordingly he is declared having passed in First Class. [c] The petitioner has secured 60% marks out of 100 in the subject Finite Element Analysis and Simulations. [d] The petitioner was awarded zero marks for question no.1(b) out of 10 marks allotted ...
Tag this Judgment!Annasaheb and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1] Appellants herein have been convicted u/s 302 and 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, vide judgment and order dated 11.10.2012. They are convicted and sentenced u/s 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. They are further convicted and sentenced u/s 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2] The case of prosecution is that the appellants along with Raosaheb Rangnath Dod, who is acquitted by the Sessions Judge of all charges, either individually or in furtherance of common intention subjected deceased Madhuri Annasaheb Dhokane, to cruelty and harassment for demanding remaining dowry amount of Rs.20,000/-...
Tag this Judgment!M/S D.B. Bandodkar and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J) Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the common orders passed by Income Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench in Income Tax Appeal No. 191 and 192/PNJ/2011 dated 20.4.2012. By the said impugned orders the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was pleased to confirm the orders which were passed by CIT Appeals who had inturn confirmed the order of assessing officer. Both these appeals were disposed of by common judgment in respect of the Assessment Year 2005-06 and 2006-07. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed returns declaring his total income of Rs.14,31,97,320/- (Rupees fourteen crores thirty one lakhs ninety seven thousand three hundred twenty only). Notices were issued under Section 142(1) dated 21.7.2009 and 31.8.2009 along with questionnaire seeking details in connection with the return which was filed. According to the Revenue, survey was conducted under Section 133(a) by DDIT(Inv), Panaji on 27.9.2006 and certain discrepancies relatin...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman Sita Smruti Co-op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd. Vs. Sidharth Associates Bu ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member. 1. This is a complaint filed on behalf of Sita Smruti Co-op. Housing Society through its Chairman-Mr.S.S. Malvankar (hereinafter referred to as complainant) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 30/11/1999 and registered in the year 2000 against M/s.Sidharth Associates Builders and Developers (hereinafter referred to as opponent) alleging deficiency in service. Complaint is subsequently numbered as Complaint No.08/2000. 2. The facts leading to this complaint can be summarized as under :- It is contended that the opponent planned to construct a complete Township under the name of Lodha Complex on the plot No.545(7) of village Mira Road, Dist. Thane contending that it will be a self-contained township of 2000 flats and shops with ultra modern amenities. The opponent advertised proposed construction in the newspaper and prepared brochure. The brochure contained many attractive features. The most attractive and lucrative ...
Tag this Judgment!The Nibbanna Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M/S. Malcolm Construction ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
The Petitioner, a Cooperative Housing Society, has challenged Award dated 31 March, 2010 passed by the sole Arbitrator by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). An agreement dated 20 January, 1996 was executed to repair the residential building. There arose dispute between the parties regarding the repair work. The contract was terminated by the Petitioner. A Suit was filed in the Bombay City Civil Court where the Court has referred the matter to the sole Arbitrator. An award on 30 May 2005 was passed. This Court, after hearing both the parties and by consent, set aside the award and appointed the sole Arbitrator for fresh arbitration. 2 The parties have filed their claim and counter claim and rejoinder before the Arbitrator. No evidence was led. The arbitration proceeded based on documents on record and basically of previous arbitration proceedings. The parties have filed additional documents also. 3 The operative part of th...
Tag this Judgment!Chetan Anand Shetty and Others Vs. Indrajeet Chandrasen Shirole and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 Heard. 2 Rule. The Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3 This Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2006 of the Small Causes Court at Pune in Civil Suit No.561/1999. This judgment and decree is confirmed by the lower Appellate Court on 30.11.2006 in Civil Appeal No.187/2006. The Applicants before me are the original Defendants. 4 The Civil Suit was filed for possession of the suit premises which are more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The Respondents (original Plaintiffs) are owners of the premises and after setting out as to how the Applicants were inducted in the premises, what is referred to is that there was a family arrangement after death of one Dinkarrao Shirole. The property is allotted to the share of the Respondents/ Plaintiffs in terms of this arrangement. It is stated that the monthly rent of the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Ujwal Shankarrao Nageshkar and Others Vs. Jaysingh Ratinath Nageshkar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Oral Order: 1. Since the above Petitions involve identical facts and also a identical challenge, they are clubbed together and heard. Rule in all the above petitions, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. For the sake of convenience, Writ Petition No.6383 of 2012 is treated as the lead matter. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 11.06.2012 passed by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur by which order application Exhibit 33, (similar applications in other matters) came to be allowed and a preliminary issue to the following effect was framed viz. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit? 3. The Petitioner abovenamed is the original Plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.425 of 2011 filed by him against the Respondents to the above petition. The said suit has been filed for recovery of money against the Res...
Tag this Judgment!Amit S/O Subhashrao Mohod Vs. the Bank of India (Through Its Head Offi ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Respondent No. 1 before this Court is a Nationalized Bank and Respondent No. 2 is its Zonal Officer. Communication dated 28.08.2012 issued by Respondent No. 2 to present petitioner informing him that in view of the provisions of Section 10(1)(b)(i) of Banking Regulations Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as 1949 Act) his candidature for the post of Clerical cadre in Respondent No. 1 Bank stood cancelled, has been questioned by the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The contention is, the Competent Court has given him benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 1958 Act) and in view of the provisions of Section 12 thereof, he cannot be subjected to any disqualification on account of said disqualification. 2. The judgment and order delivered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandur Bazar, in Regular Criminal Case No. 133 of 2003 on 06.02.2008 is not in dispute. The ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »