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.
M/s. Kassiopi Maritime Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. M.T.AL Layyah and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2014
P.C. : 1. By an exparte order dated 11.9.2012 this Court ordered arrest of the 1st defendant-vessel. Thereafter by an order dated 9.11.2012 this court ordered release of the 1st defendant-vessel at which time the court directed the 2nd defendant/one Horizon Energy Co. LLC (group company of defendant no.2) to furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of USD 453,453/- to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary and Senior Master. This bank guarantee was to be renewed every year. In addition, Horizon Energy Co. LLC/ defendant no.2 had to furnish further bank guarantee every subsequent year in the sum of USD 37,441/- towards interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the plaintiff's claim. The said order was passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties, and with liberty to the defendants/Horizon to take out an appropriate application for seeking vacation, release and/or reduction of security and dismissal of suit. 2. Thereafter the plaintiff referred its suit claim to arbitrat...
Subhash Kanade Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2014
Oral Order: 1. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Counsel for respondents and the learned APP. By consent heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 2. The petitioner is the original complainant. He filed a complaint/ application before the Metropolitan Magistrate 27th Court at Mulund, alleging the commission of certain cognisable offences by persons named as accused in the said application/ complaint. The prayer of the petitioner before the Magistrate was that the investigation as contemplated under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Code") be ordered. On this application/ complaint, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:- "Read complaint and perused the documents, heard the learned counsel for complainant. It appears that it is necessary to proper investigation under section 202 here because complaint is given on 13th September 2011 since then not file complaint immediately. So i...
Appasaheb and Others Vs. Lahanu Ramchandra Cholke
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides for quite some time. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners are the original defendants. RCS No.361/2009 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of possession of the encroached land, which is pending before the Trial Court. A T.I.L.R. had earlier carried out the measurement of the suit land on 18/08/2009 and had drawn a map based on the said measurement, in the presence of both the parties, which was placed on record in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff has led oral evidence and the same has accordingly been recorded. The evidence of the plaintiff/respondent is now closed and the stage is for the defendants to step into the witness box. The petitioners had cross-examined the T.I.L.R. on his measurement report dated 25/08/2009 and the map. 3. An application dated 11/09/2013 was filed by the petitioners seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner for carrying out...
Madhukar B. Kunkalienkar, Accountant and Others Vs. State of Goa, thro ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-02-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. This Court has today decided Writ Petitions no.243 of 2006, 326 of 2006 and 336 of 2006. There the question was whether wage revision given to cadre of Mamlatdar/ Joint Mamlatdar/B.D.O etc. was by way of interim arrangement or in recognition of grievance of anomaly. In the light of the Judgment dated 29/7/2003 delivered in Writ Petition No.205/1999 and other connected matters this Court has found that the said revision was in fact substitution of earlier pay scale and therefore not interlocutory or interim in nature. 2. Here the petitioners have been recruited after advertisement dated 11/10/1996. That advertisement prescribed pay scale of Rs.1600-50-2300-EB-60-2660 for the post of Accountant. Petitioners have received offer of appointment mentioning the very same pay scale and they have been appointed on 15/5/1997 in that pay scale only. 3. When 5th wage revision came to be implemented petitioners expected their placement in pay scale of Rs.5...
Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited Vs. South Konkan Distille ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2014
G.S. Patel, J. 1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant both manufacture and sell country liquor. The suit is an action in trade mark infringement combined with a cause of action in passing off. On 9th May 2014, the Plaintiff sought and obtained leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent to combine the two causes of action in this suit. 2. The Plaintiff claims to have a registered trade mark "TANGO PUNCH" under registration no.1051107 in Class 33, of which the word TANGO is said to be an essential, leading and memorable feature. This word is used by the Plaintiff with or without a device of a raised palm with the first three fingers held upright. This mark TANGO and the three-finger device are embossed on the Plaintiff's glass bottles. The Notice of Motion seeks interim injunctive relief for, according to the Plaintiff, the Defendant has been found to be vending its own distillations in the Plaintiff's embossed bottles. 3. The principal defences, in brief, are that this usage is an honest ...
M/s. Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Celem S.A.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2014
1. Admit. Learned counsel appearing for respondent waive service. Returnable forthwith and is heard finally. 2. This appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated 7th April, 2011 passed by the learned District Judge 1, Nashik allowing the application filed by the respondent under order 7 rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and thereby rejecting the plaint. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under :- 3. On 18th August 2005 the appellant (original plaintiff) filed a suit against the respondent (original defendant) being Civil Suit No.216 of 2005 in the District court Nashik inter alia praying for a declaration that the threats of the defendant of infringement proceedings against the plaintiff are baseless and unjustified prayed for perpetual injunction and money decree. In paragraph 35 of the plaint it is averred that Mr.Siddharth Sachdev who is a director of the plaintiff company and who is aware of and is able to depose the f...
New Consolidated Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Serum Bio Pharma Park ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2014
1. This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) challenging the award dated 16th September, 2013 in an arbitration between the parties consequent upon agreements entered into by them for construction of 3 buildings in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ). 2. The parties initially entered into a turn key contract; the petitioner was to obtain materials and construct the buildings therefrom. The parties thereafter modified that contract so that the petitioner was granted a labour contract under which the respondent was to supply the material and the petitioner as contractor, was to construct the buildings from the materials supplied. The initial contract set out the permissible wastages of various items which would be allowed to the extent mentioned therein. This was because the petitioner was to obtain the material and carry out the construction. It was, therefore, accountable for any wastage, a part of which is contractually allowed. The la...
Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sadhana Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2014
P.C. : This Chamber Summons is taken out by the Plaintiff/Applicant for amendment of the plaint. The Schedule of the amendment annexed to the Chamber Summons seeks to add averments in respect of a purported declaration and deed of apartment, both dated 17 October 2002, executed between Defendant Nos.1 and 5. The amendment further seeks to add prayers seeking inter alia a declaration of nullity of the purported declaration and deed of apartment. The facts of the case, leading to the present application, may be briefly stated as follows: 2. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of land executed between Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff claimed to have learnt about a transaction between Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.5 contained in a letter of allotment dated 16 August 1996, by which Defendant No.1 purported to create rights in favour of Defendant No.5 in respect of the suit property. The ...
Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lokranjan Breweries Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2014
G.S. Patel, J. 1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant both manufacture and sell country liquor. The suit is an action in trade mark infringement combined with a cause of action in passing off. A petition for leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent is pending. The present application is restricted to interim reliefs in infringement. 2. The Plaintiff claims to have a registered trade mark TANGO PUNCH under registration no.1051107 in Class 33, of which the word TANGO is said to be an essential, leading and memorable feature. This word is used by the Plaintiff with or without a device of a raised palm with the first three fingers held upright. This mark TANGO and the three-finger device are embossed on the Plaintiffs glass bottles. The Notice of Motion seeks interim injunctive relief for, according to the Plaintiff, the Defendant has been found to be vending its own distillations in the Plaintiffs embossed bottles. Therefore, the Plaintiff says, the Defendant must be restrained from using...
Rehenjya Shelya Pawara and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2014
P.R. Bora, J. 1. All the above appeals are arising out judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No. 42/2002, decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada on 17-01-2012. In the aforesaid Sessions case, three persons were tried. The accused No. 1 was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) (c) and 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code (for the sake of brevity I.P.C.), whereas accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 509/2012) were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468, read with 34 of the I.P.C. All the three accused were also tried for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada has convicted accused No.1-Rehenjya Shelya Pawara (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 106/2012) for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (c) of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Ten Years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »