Mumbai Court February 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.
Sab Miller India Ltd. Vs. M.P. Beer Products Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2014
1. The Petitioner (Original Plaintiff) has filed the above Suit inter alia for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondent (Original Defendant) from infringing the registered trademarks bearing Nos.436744 and/or 1521743 both in Class 32. Along with the Plaint, the Plaintiff filed the above Petition No.885 of 2011 seeking leave of this Court under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent, Bombay, to combine the cause of action for passing off with cause of action for infringement of trademark. Prayer clause (a) of the above Petition is reproduced herein below: (a) That leave be granted to the Petitioner under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent of this Court to join together the cause of action for passing off with the cause of action of infringement of trademark and for a combined trial of the said issues in the above Suit against the Respondents?. For the sake of convenience, the Petitioner shall hereinafter be referred to as œthe Plaintiff? and the Respondent as œthe...
Bhaurao Vs. Wainganga Krishna Kshetriya GramIn Bank and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-13-2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a senior citizen seeks quashing and setting aside of a communication dated 17.12.2011 fixing date of hearing in Departmental inquiry, on the ground that the inquiry has been initiated more than four years after the alleged misconduct and inquiry could not have been initiated after 31.05.2011 i.e. his superannuation. 2. Looking to the nature of controversy, we have heard Shri Thengre, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents finally with their consent by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner, working at the relevant time as a Staff Officer, Wadsa Branch of Respondent No.1 “ Regional Bank, was placed under suspension for gross misconduct and irregularities on 02.08.2007. The suspension order mentions that on 06.06.2007, the petitioner cleared a cheque in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- though it was not ...
Aradhana Walkade Vs. Chandrashekar Vaidya and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-13-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the stage of admission by consent. This Criminal Writ petition involves a question of law as to whether subsistence of marriage is sine qua non for maintainability of a complaint under section 12 of the offence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005? 2. The petitioner and the respondent got married on 8/8/2001. They had a daughter out of the wedlock. However, unfortunately, the parties were divorced by the order of the Court dated 24/2/2010 passed in Matrimonial Petition No.43/2009/A by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji. At the time of granting decree of divorce, the learned Judge did not pass any order of maintenance, as it was not prayed for at the relevant time. However, after the decree of divorce, the respondent/husband out of love and concern was paying the amount of Rs. 25,000/- for the daughter to the petitioner August 2011. Thereafter, the respondent/husband stopped paying the sai...
Dev Raj Mehta of Bombay Vs. Union of India, Through the Ministry of Te ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2014
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner who was an employee of the National Textile Corporation Limited has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) that in exercise of its jurisdiction this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the action of the Respondents in effecting illegal deduction from the legal dues of the Petitioner is violative of Articles 14, 19, 21, 39 (2) and 300A of the Constitution of India; (b) that in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondents to cancel and/or to withdraw the Order dated 24.12.2004 issued by the Respondents effecting illegal deductions of Rs.3,01,361/- from the legal dues of the Petitioner. (c) direct the Respondents to pay the Petitioner sum of Rs.3,01,361/- together with interest at the rate of...
Akole Taluka Education Society Akole and Another Vs. All India Council ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. We have heard the rival parties at length on 05/02/2014. In view of the earlier orders passed and the directions that we propose to give by this order, we do not find it necessary to advert to all the contentions put forth by the rival parties. We intend to consider those contentions which we find are relevant and therefore germane to the nature of the order that we propose to pass. 4. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.8312/2011 which was decided by this Court on 10.01.2012. Thereafter, a review petition No.221/2012 was preferred by the AICTE which was heard and decided by this Court on 10.01.2013. AICTE was directed by this Court to issue letter of approval to the Petitioner College. 5. Writ Petition No.10741/2012 was filed by the petitioner which came to be decided by a judgment of this C...
Joao Alias John Fernandes and Others Vs. Bernadina Fernandes and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Kamat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Narvekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This appeal is filed, by the original defendants of the suit who were appellants in Regular Civil Appeal filed before the District Judge, South Goa along with Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 122 of 2009 for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal, against the order dated 06/01/2009, passed by the District Judge-2, Margao (First Appellate Court), in the said Civil miscellaneous Application No. 112 2009. 3. After hearing the learned Counsel, limited question that arises in the present appeal is as follows: œWhether the First Appellate Court was competent to decide the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and consequently the appeal, on merit when on the date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the appellants and whether the Court was bound to dismiss the application/appeal for want of ...
Pradeep Ganpatrao Ganwir Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Sec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner belongs to Scheduled caste category, who was not party to Original Application No. 927 of 2012, has challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short, œthe Tribunal?) dated 30 September 2013 thereby, allowed the Original Application filed by Applicant-Respondent No.4, belonging to V.J. (A) category of backward classes and directed to promote as Secretary, Public Works Department of State of Maharashtra (Respondent No.1), by filing the present Petition on 11 November 2013. Apart from the prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order, the prayer is also made to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order. The matter was adjourned from time to time. Ultimately, as the preliminary objection was raised on 15 January 2014, the matter is listed today for final disposal, as it could not be heard on 22 January 2014. There is no specific ad-interim orde...
Dr. Gorakh Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Agricu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
Oral Judgment: (R.M. Borde, J.) 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. The petitioner is seeking to quash the order dated 31.03.2012, issued by Respondent No.2, directing revision of pay scale and recovery of amount from the pensionary benefits accruable to the petitioner as a consequence of revision of pay scale from 30.05.1984 onwards. 3. The petitioner was initially employed in 1978 as a Junior Assistant Scientist and has retired on 31.05.2010 on attaining age of superannuation. After his retirement, taking recourse to the circular issued by the University on 17.08.2010, a decision is taken to re-fix the pay scale admissible to the petitioner since 1984 and a further direction has been issued to recover the excess amount paid to him while in employment out of the pensionary benefits accruable to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has been considered eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Assistan...
Dinesh Vs. the Collector, Nagpur and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
Z.A. Haq, J. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner, Director and Chairman of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Katol, has filed this writ petition challenging the resolution passed in the special meeting of the respondent no.16 Committee on 26.12.2013 by which the No-Confidence Motion is passed against the petitioner. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent nos.13, 14 and 15 did not attend the meetings of the respondent no.16 Committee on 10.10.2013, 09.11.2013 and 12.11.2013 and, therefore, in the meeting held on 12.11.2013, after discussion, the Secretary of the respondent no.16 Committee was directed to take note of it and to give intimation about it to the concerned authorities. According to the petitioner, the Secretary had not taken any action in the matter and, therefore, by the letter dated 21.11.2013, the petitioner had given intimation to the in-charge Secretary to give information about the absence of the respondent nos.13, 14 and 15...
Sunil Thukral Vs. Tolu @ Tulo Puno Velip and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original complainant against the judgment and order dated 19/01/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Panaji in Criminal Case No.OA 107/09/C, thereby acquitting the respondent/accused from the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881. 2. It is the case of the original complainant that in the month of February, 2008, the respondent/accused approached the complainant for loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs only) and therefore on 26/02/2008, the original complainant gave him loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs only) on condition that he would repay the said amount within a period of 6 months and if not paid he would pay interest at the rate of 5% on the said amount. At the relevant time, i.e. on 26/02/2008, the original complainant and the respondent/accused entered into an agreement in which the respondent/accused had acknowledged the debt of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »