Mumbai Court September 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.
Pravin @ Anand Gajanan Patil and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2014
P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for State. Perused the papers. 2. These are applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicants are arrested in Crime No.139 of 2014 on 2nd March, 2014 registered at Mulund Police Station for offence punishable under Section 395, 397, 385, 342, 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed on 9th May, 2014. 3. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is that on 1st March, 2014 Ravindra Bandu Varpe lodged a report at the police station contending therein that he is a friend of Shankar Khedekar (applicant in BA 1631 of 2014). They are co-accused in a Criminal Case where they are charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the year 2010, he had started security agency in the name and style of Pushpak Detective and Services Private Limited. He had purchased a ...
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2014
G.S. Patel, J. 1. This is a suit in trademark infringement combined with a cause of action in passing off. The Plaintiff claims that its registered trade marks, OROFER and OROFER-XT, used in conjunction with medicinal products, are being infringed by the Defendants use of rival trade marks COROFER and COROFER-XT, and that the Defendant is attempting to pass off its goods as those of the Plaintiff. The present application is for interim reliefs, including an injunction and a Court Receiver. 2. The defence is, in brief, that the rival marks are not deceptively similar to those of the Plaintiff. They are distinct, and the differences are apparent and discernible. In any case, this is not a fit case for the grant of an injunction; the matter should proceed to trial. For, when the Defendant applied for registration, the Plaintiffs marks were not cited as conflicting. More importantly, the Defendant claims to be using the rival marks since 2001. The Plaintiff having acquiesced in the Defenda...
Ajay and Others Vs. Mrunali Prabhakar Gadgil and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition, the petitioners original plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 4-5-2013 passed below Exhibit-46 in Regular Civil Suit No.124 of 2013 whereby it has been held that the Court of the 4th Joint Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Akola had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the said suit. 2. On 10-5-2013, notice for final disposal of the writ petition was issued to the respondents. Accordingly, I have heard Shri S. A. Mohta, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Smt. P.M. Chandekar, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 and Shri A. R. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.3. 3. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 4. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. It is the case of the petitioners that their predecessor, Bhalchandra Nandedkar had purchased the suit property from defendant No.1 vide registered sale deed dated 14-4-1977. It is their case that they being the legal heirs of said Bhalchandra Nandedkar...
Mohd. Salim Abdul Sattar Vs. Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2014
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants notice of motion for interim reliefs restraining the respondent from dealing with his 50% share in the suit property which admeasures 219 sq.yards. 2. According to the appellant, respondent No.2 and he are the co-owners of the suit property. Respondent No.3 is the husband of the respondent No.2. The appellant contends that the alleged surrender of his share in the property in favour of respondent No.2 is illegal and fraudulent. The appellant, accordingly, contends that respondent No.1 who claims to have purchased the property from respondent No.2 has acquired no right in respect of his 50% undivided share in the property. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge has rightly exercised his discretion in refusing to grant interim reliefs. 4. The appellant and the respondent No.2 purchased the property by a Conveyance dated 16th March, 2000. The pr...
Lotus Refineries Private Limited Vs. National Spot Exchange Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2014
1. The present Notice of Motion is taken out by the Applicant/Defendant (the Defendant) in the above Suit under the provisions of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), seeking to refer the parties to the above Suit to arbitration as contemplated under the Arbitration Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant contained in Clause 3.1.2 and Clause 15.4 of the Bye-Laws of the Defendant Exchange (Byelaws), as also Clause 11.11 of the Undertaking for Internet Based Trading (UIBT) given by the Plaintiff to the Defendant Exchange. 2. The Plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and is inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling edible oils. The Defendant is an unlisted public company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and is the nationallevel institution that carries on business as a trading exchange providing for an electronic trading platform for spo...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City- XII Vs. Adamsons Inc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2014
1. We have heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the Revenue. At its instance, the question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for answer and opinion of this Court. The said question reads as under: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in not appreciating that as per the provisions of section 5(2)(b) of the Act the total income of a person who is a non-resident includes all income from whatever sources derived which accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India during such year?" 2. There is no dispute about the facts inasmuch as in the assessment year 1989-90, the only source of income, the Assessee has not shown is the interest on fixed deposit with M/s. Karnataka Ball Bearings Corporation Ltd. It was informed by letter dated 2nd December, 1987 that the interest not paid during the relevant year will be paid to the Assessee company in the near future along with original sum of Rs.2,00,000/...
HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2014
P.C.: 1. The plaintiff is a private bank registered under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956. The defendant is a public sector insurance company engaged in the business of general insurance. Among the various insurance covers the defendants issue one such cover is Bankers Indemnity Insurance. 2. The defendants had issued one such Bankers Indemnity Insurance Policy to the plaintiff. Fraud was committed in the plaintiff's branch office situated at Ravipuram Desam Kochi, Kerala by its employee one T.M. Prajeeth who was the then Manager and in-charge of the extension counter of the said branch. The modus operandi adopted by the said T.M. Prajeeth was to debit, without authorization, the account of certain corporate customers of the plaintiff and utilize those amounts to make payment to certain stock exchange brokers for the settlement of the said employee T.M. Prajeeth's personal share transactions. After lodging FIR against the said T.M.Prajeeth, the plaintiff made a claim under the...
Vijay @ Munna Bharat Gurkhude Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the counsel for the parties. 3. By way of filing this Application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant seeks quashment of criminal proceeding / Criminal Case registered as R.C.C.No. 551/2013 and now pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, District Beed. 4. The prosecution story as it emerges from the material placed on record against the applicant is as under: One Mr.Vidyanand Murlidhar Kale, working as Police Inspector, Beed City Police Station, Beed filed a complaint on 10th August, 2013. It is stated in the said complaint that, he is working with the City Police Station, Beed, since 1st December, 2011. On 13th March, 2013, in Beed City Police Station, Beed, one application signed by complainant namely Datta Vithalrao Shelke, Resident of Govindnagar, Beed, dated 15th February, 2013 was received from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Beed. The said app...
The Association of Management of Unaided Engineering Colleges (Mah.) a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2014
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. As common issues are involved in these Writ Petitions, so also the challenge to Clause-14 of the Government Resolution (GR)Nos. 177 and 188, (74/13-81/13) dated 9.5.2013, 15 May 2013, therefore, this common judgment. Impugned Clause No.14 (translation) is as under:- 14. The Institutes which are recognized by this Government Resolution who has applied directly to All India Council of Technical Education instead of submitting proposal through State Government as well as those institutes which are negatively recommended by the State Government such institutes will not be eligible for fee reimbursement scheme as implemented by State Government for approved courses. Director, Directorate of Technical Education, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai, is directed to act in accordance with this condition. 3. Technical Education and related aspects are controlled and governed by the All India Council for Technic...
Krishna and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2014
S.S. Shinde,J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the Counsels for the parties. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, in one of the crime out of three cases registered against him with Tophkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar the petitioner is already tried and trial ended in acquittal. It is submitted that, though specific ground was taken in reply that, the petitioner is acquitted, however, the respondent authorities have not considered the said fact and therefore, an externment proceedings stands vitiated. It is further submitted two cases registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.168/2010 and rime No.73/2012 are still pending and in both the cases the petitioner is on bail. It is further submitted that, the mandate of Section 56 (1) (a) (b) of the Bombay Police Act has not been followed by the respondent authorities inasmuch as it is not mentioned in the show cause notice as well as externment order that, the activ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »