Mumbai Court January 2014 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.
Uday Narendra Shah Vs. Narendra Amritlal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2014
1. The plaintiff is the son of the defendant. The defendant's wife, the plaintiff's mother, expired on 10th June, 2013 leaving behind a registered will dated 2nd July 2011. The plaintiff has sought administration of her estate. The plaintiff has also sought disclosure of the remainder of the estate which the plaintiff has no knowledge of. The plaintiff is the sole beneficiary under the will of the deceased which has been sought to be probated. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the properties bequeathed by the deceased to him and the usual injunction against alienation of those properties. 2. In the suit the plaintiff has claimed partition of immovable properties that have been bequeathed to him and mandatory injunction directing to handover those properties to the plaintiff and the usual permanent injunctions against alienation. 3. The defendant has filed his affidavit-in-reply to the notice of motion to oppose the grant of ad-interim reliefs. The plaintiff has filed the rejoinde...
Ultratech Cement Limited and Another Vs. Shree Balaji Cement Industrie ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2014
1. The Petitioners (œPlaintiffs?) have filed the present Suit, inter alia, for infringement of its registered trademarks being œUltraTech Cement? and/or marks, the essential feature whereof is 'UltraTech', as more particularly set out in the Plaint, and for passing off. 2. For the sake of convenience, the Petitioners shall hereinafter be referred to as œthe Plaintiffs? and the Respondents as œthe Defendants?. 3. According to the Plaintiffs, this Court has jurisdiction to grant reliefs for infringement of trademarks in view of the fact that the Plaintiffs carry on business within the jurisdiction of this Court and Plaintiff No.1 has its Registered Office and Plaintiff No.2 has its Corporate Office within the jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly, the Defendants do not carry on business nor do they have any place of business within the jurisdiction of this Court. In view thereof, the Plaintiffs are, by the present Petition, seeking leave under Clause XIV of the L...
Dr. Kamalsingh and Others Vs. Sharad and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-18-2014
1. This is an application for review filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 2. The review of judgment dated 28/4/2008 delivered by this Court in Second Appeal No. 116 of 1992 has been sought by the applicants on the ground that there has been an error apparent on the face of the record in recording a finding as regards ownership of the non-applicants and that this finding has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 3. The non-applicants filed a civil suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.144 of 1976 against the applicants claiming that they became the owners of field No.6/1 having area of about 29 acres situated at Mouza Dadapur,Tah. Warora, Distt. Chandrapur, hereinafter called as 'suit property', for the sake of convenience, by virtue of registered will executed in their favour in the year 1973 by one Bharatsingh. It was their case that original non-applicant No.1 Meerabai was the legally wedded wife of Bharatsingh and non-applicant No.2 was his...
State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Ajay Dayaram Gopnarayan and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. This is a Criminal Reference Registration No.1/2013 for confirmation of death sentence against accused no.1-Ajay Dayaram Gopnarayan. 2. Both the accused persons Ajay Dayaram Gopnarayan and Nitin Nandkishor Gudadhe have also preferred Criminal Appeal No.225/2013 praying for acquittal against judgment of conviction for offences punishable under section 302 and 392 of I.P.C. and accused no. 1-Ajay is sentenced to death while accused no.2-Nitin Gudadhe is sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the matters are taken up together for hearing and disposal. Hence, this common judgment. FACTS: 3. The prosecution case is that the deceased Vijayatai Vitthalrao Pund aged about 75 years, who was mother of PW1-Sunil Vitthalrao Pund, a practicing lawyer by profession at Amravati was residing in Venus Park area of Kanta Nagar, Amravati. The house was constructed by PW1-Sunil about 67 years befor...
Pedro Do Rosario Fernandes Alias Pedro Antonio Miguel Fernandes Vs. Wi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 1. 2. The above Appeal came to be admitted by an Order dated 16.07.2010 on the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has misconstrued the provisions of the Limitation Act of Article 58 to the effect that the suit for declaration of title is barred by the law of limitation when there was no claim of adverse possession raised by the Respondents herein? 2. Whether the findings of the Lower Appellate Court to the effect that the Appellants have failed to identify the suit property are perverse in view of the fact that the contents of Para 1 and 2 of the plaint have not been denied by the Respondents in their written statement? 3. Whilst dealing with the first substantial question of law, Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has taken me throu...
T.V.P. Bhaskar Rao Vs. M/S. Susheela Homes and Properties Private Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Heard Shri S. Kamat Malyekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri C. Mascarenhas, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 73/2010/B, pending before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, 'B' Court, Vasco-da-Gama (Trial Court, for short), has challenged the order dated 20/04/2012 passed by the Trial Court in the said suit whereby the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 4. The facts relevant for the purpose of the disposal of this petition are as follows: The petitioner has filed the said suit for specific performance of contract, injunction and other reliefs. In the plaint, inter alia, the petitioner has averred that he had paid to the respondent no.1 an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. three lacs only) as part consideration for purchase of the su...
Devappa Laxman Gaunkar and Others Vs. Balkrishna Nilu Gaunkar and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. R. G. Ramani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1(A) to 1(L) and Mr. P. Kamat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 5(a) and 5(b). 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 07.01.2009 on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the Trial Court fell in error in holding that the plaint did not disclose the cause of action? (2) Whether the Trial Court fell in error in holding that the suit was barred by limitation particularly, when the appellants were claiming only declaration and not possession? 3. During the course of the hearing of the above appeal, Mr. Ramani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has pointed out that an additional substantial question of law needs to be framed which is as under: œWhen the plaintiffs' case was that the plaintiffs were the owners and in possession of the suit property, the learned Lower...
M/S. Shriniwas Machine Craft Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Income Tax Settlement C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
M.S. Sanklecha, J. At the request of the Counsel for both sides the petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges: i) the order dated 15 March 2013 passed by the Settlement Commission i.e. respondent No.1 under Section 245D(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (œthe Act?) rejecting the petitioner's application for settlement for the Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10; and ii) two notices dated 30 March 2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax i.e. respondent No.3 (œAssessing Officer?) under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10. 2) The relevant facts leading to this petition are: a) The petitioner is engaged in the fabrication of sheet metal canopies for diesel generating sets. b) On 6 November 2012 a Survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted on the petitioner. During the course of the above survey certain ...
Ravi S/O Changdeo Adhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Per Court: (S.S. Shinde, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. This Criminal Application is filed with prayer for quashing the proceeding in Regular Trial Criminal Case No.162 Of 2010 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Brief facts leading to file this application, as disclosed in the application, are as under:- (i) On the basis of report lodged by Respondent No.2 - Uttam s/o Kamlakar Supekar, CR No. I 44/10 came to be registered with Kopargaon Police Station against the applicants for the offences punishable U/Section.s. 324, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of œThe Indian Penal Code, 1860?. (In short, the IPC.) After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed in the court and case is registered as RTC No.162 Of 2010. (ii) Respondent No.2 carries the business of selling and purchasing the buffalo. Respondent No.2 and the applicants are i...
Soiru Keshav Porob Sawkar Vs. Navdurga Devasthan Borim and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The above Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law : a) Whether the Judgments of the Courts below are vitiated on account of non-consideration of documentary evidence namely PW1/K being acknowledgment of Appellant's right in respect of Survey no. 2/6 by Respondent no. 1/Defendant no. 1? b) Whether the Appellate Court was right in holding that the Appellant has not led evidence to rebut presumption arise under Section 105 of Land Revenue Code about the entries in the occupants column of record of rights in Form I and XIV? c) Whether the Appellate Court was right in dismissing the application to produce additional documents without first hearing the appeal on merits? d) Whether the Appellate Court should have heard the application for production of additional documents at the time of hearing the appeal on merits as held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. T. N. Sahani and Ors. (2001 (10) SCC 619)? 2. Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonka...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »