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.
Vijay Alcoholes and Allied Industries Ltd. Vs. Brihan Karan Sugar Synd ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
1. This Appeal from Order is filed by the original Defendant of Regular Civil Suit No.1 of 2012 pending before the Court of District Judge, Amalner. The Respondent-original Plaintiff has filed the Suit for permanent injunction, damages, accounts and other reliefs, for infringement of copy right under the Copyright Act, 1957 and for passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (œCopyright Act? and œTrade Marks Act? in brief). The District Judge has granted temporary injunction in favour of Plaintiff, restraining the Defendant from using, printing or publishing the impugned label, Annexure C attached to the Plaint, during the pendency of the Suit. Thus, this Appeal. I will refer to the Appellant as Defendant and Respondent as Plaintiff, the way in which they are arrayed before the trial Court. 2. In brief, the dispute is that the parties are manufacturers of country liquor. Plaintiff manufactures country liquor from sugar cane molasses. Defendant manufactures the same from the...
Sureshkumar Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge-I Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 162/1997 on 30.1.2009 thereby allowing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 477/1994 by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur on 12.12.1996. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are stated in brief as under:- The appellant is the original plaintiff in a suit instituted by him against the respondent herein. The suit filed by the appellant was for declaration and permanent injunction. It was the case of the appellant that the appellant was customer of the respondent and the respondent supplied electricity to the appellant at his stone crushing unit situated at Village Khapri, Taluka Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur. In the said suit, the appellant disputed the bill issued for month of January, 1994, for Rs.67,059.30 paise. The said bill was issued by the respondent herein after a flying squad of the ...
Balaji Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary Department o ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Oral Judgment: (R.M. Borde, J. ) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3. Petitioner, who was serving as Assistant Teacher with respondent no. 5 “ management, is assailing decision by the management to hold an enquiry against him and consequential order of termination which came to be issued on 28.09.2011 during the pendency of petition. Petitioner is also seeking direction to respondent nos. 4 and 5 to prepare and finalise pension papers and submit the same to the office of respondent nos. 2 and 3 so as to facilitate petitioner to avail of pensionary benefits. Petitioner also seeks directions against respondent nos. 2 and 3 to sanction pension and other pensionary benefits on receipt of pension papers from respondent nos. 4 and 5. It is not controverted that petitioner was serving as Assistant Teacher in the school operated by respondent no. 5 and was permitted to retire on ...
Pradip Vasudeo Ekbote and Others Vs. Shantaram Motiram Gatkal and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The Writ Jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the common order dated 22nd March, 2013 passed by the learned President of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, by which order, the Revision Applications being Revision Application Nos. 11B of 2012, 12B of 2012 and 13B of 2012 and 14B of 2012, came to be dismissed and resultantly the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer in Tenancy Appeal Nos. 18 of 2010 to 21 of 2010 came to be confirmed. 3) The facts necessary to be cited for an adjudication of the above Petitions can be stated thus: The Respondents claim to be the tenants of the lands in question being Survey Nos. 62/4 (new Gat No.141) admeasuring 1 Hector 0.2 Ares in Writ Petition No. 6720 of 2013 and Writ Petition No.6721 of 2013, and land bearing Gat No.179 (old Survey No.75/4) admeasuring 1 Hector ...
Minakshi Prakash Akhare Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Advocate Shri Shrivastava for the petitioner and Shri Fulzele learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. Looking to the nature of controversy, matter is heard finally by issuing rule and making it returnable forthwith. 2. After matter was heard for some time, learned AGP wanted an adjournment to enable him to secure further instructions in the matter. However, we have rejected that request. 3. The petitioner joined on 15/10/1984 as a Typist. On 11/9/1989 she voluntarily opted for the post of Junior Clerk. The pay scale of Typist then was Rs.975 “ 1660 while that of Junior Clerk Rs.950 “ 1500. Accordingly, she became Junior Clerk and thereafter has been promoted further as Senior Clerk on 12/9/1996. 4. In the meanwhile, on 26/11/1990 the State Government issued a Government Resolution and created a common cadre of Typist, Clerks and Junior Clerks in the pay scale of Rs.950 “ 1500. Typists were given libert...
Gajanan Vs. Govinda and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
1. The present appeal is directed, against judgment and order dated 6.8.2012, passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge-I, Khamgaon, in Regular Civil Appeal No.8 of 2008, which was dismissed, which arose from judgment and order dated 12.12.2007, passed by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Khamgaon, in Regular Civil Suit No.48 of 2003, whereby the suit for specific performance was decreed. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties at bar. 3. Shri P.S.Wathore, learned counsel appearing for appellant Gajanan S/o Namdeo Jumle (defendant No.2), contends that there is substantial question of law on the ground that the Courts below could not have passed the decree directing the defendants to deliver the possession of the suit land to respondent No.1 Govinda S/o Namdeo Jumle (plaintiff) when sale deed dated 27.1.2003 obtained by the appellant was not challenged and sought to be cancelled. 4. The facts of the case in a nut shell, are thus: The dispute rel...
M/S. Mayurpunkh Fine Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respective Respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The Petitioners' (a developer under the SRA scheme) grievance is about non-granting them of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance on the property bearing CTS No.30(Part) and 31 (Part) of Village Juhu and CTS No. 195(Part) of Revenue Village Andheri at Andheri (West), though their Application/Representation is pending before Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 since long. 3. After hearing both the parties and after considering the judgments so cited by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties, it is clear that the defence of the Respondent authorities is that NCZMA is in process of preparing a New Coastal Zone Management Plan for Mumbai region and Raigad District. This Court has decided the issue in following words: œ8. The respondents have not disputed the correctness of the aforesaid map. Only defence of the respond...
Arjun S/O Bhimaji Lakare (Kahar) (Deceased) Through L.Rs. and Others V ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
1. This revision application has been filed by the original defendants No.1 and 2. The respondent No.4 is original defendant No.4. The contesting respondent No.1 Trust is before the Court through managing trustees. The respondent No.1- Plaintiff brought Waqf Suit No.21/2007 before the Maharashtra Waqf Tribunal at Aurangabad, claiming recovery of possession from defendants No.1 to 3, on the basis that these defendants are encroachers on Waqf property and possession should be given to the plaintiffs. The suit has been decreed and thus, the present revision application. 2. Plaintiff is described as Hindustan Momin Banarasi Jaatiche Panch, Yeola i.e. Baherchi Masjid, through its trustees as mentioned in the plaint. Plaintiff claimed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Suit property is Survey No. 11-A of village Yeola, admeasuring 4 Hectors 02 R. The said property belongs to plaintiff Masjid and is meant for religious, pious and charitable purpose. The suit claims that the ...
Meena and Others Vs. Alka Sandeep Ingale and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is preferred against the the judgment and Award passed on 16.9.2010 in Claim Petition No. 354 of 2006 delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldana. 2. Appellants are the original claimants who had filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the loss caused to them by the death of Ganesh. Appellant no.1 is the widow of Ganesh and appellants 2 to 4 are his children and appellant no. 5, who is a party in person, is his mother. According to the appellants, deceased Ganesh, working as Head Constable and posted at police headquarters Buldana, was discharging his official function of distributing letters and parcels by driving a police van. While he was travelling by a police van along with others on 17.5.2006, the police party took a halt at Nandura, keeping the police van parked by the side of the road. Deceased then got himself engaged in cleaning the window screen...
Rajendra Rameshwardas Gindodiya Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The Petitioner is the owner of S.No.569/1 admeasuring 2 Hectares and 12 Ares situated at Dhule. The said land is the ancestral property of the Petitioner. 5. The petitioner contends that, first development plan for city of Dhule came into effect on 18.6.1958. Part of the land of the petitioner was shown to be reserved for a Garden and some part of the same land was shown to be reserved for a 100 wide ring road under the said development plan. Though the said plot was reserved for a garden as well as for a ring road in the year 1958, no garden as on date is developed on the said land inasmuch as no road is constructed through the land of the petitioner. The said ring road is constructed through the adjoining land of the petitioner. 6. It is further contended that the second development plan for the city of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »