Mumbai Court January 2015 Judgments
J.R. Gaikwad Laboratory Assistant Gr. II and Others Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2015
Oral Judgment: (Naresh H. Patil, J.) 1. The Petitioners pray for a writ of Certiorari for setting aside the judgment and order delivered in Original Application No.856 of 1996 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai dated 23rd March, 1999 and 6th April, 1999. The Petitioners pray for the grant of pay scale of Rs.425-700. Petitioner Nos.1 to 37 contend that they were working as Laboratory Assistant, Grade-II, whereas Petitioner Nos.38 and 39 are presently working as Laboratory Assistant, Grade-I with Respondent No.2 as mentioned in Annexure A to the Petition. The pay scales as existed prior to 1980 are described in paragraph 3 of the Petition. The Central Government had appointed a committee known as 'Dr. Swaminathan committee' to look into the organizational structure of the research station and to suggest staffing pattern, method of recruitment, training of research personnel etc. The said Committee in its report observed that there was anomaly in the scale and pay of Senior Ob...
Tag this Judgment!Dewanchand Ramsaran Trading Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. IL and FS Financi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2015
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. Admit. The Respondents through their respective counsel, waive service. By consent of parties made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. These two Appeals take exception to the common order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 28th November, 2014 under which two Chamber Summons filed by the Appellant (original Defendant No.5) came to be dismissed. Chamber Summons No.748 of 2014 was filed by the Appellant inter alia seeking a direction that Respondent No.3 herein (original Defendant No.6) be ordered to pay to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein (original Plaintiffs) a sum of Rs.23,50,00,000/- and to ICICI Bank Ltd a sum of USD 17,000,000/- as per clause 11(a) read with clause 15 of the consent terms dated 28th September 2011, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a. from 31st October, 2011 till payment. Chamber Summons No.709 of 2014 was filed by the Appellant seeking a declaration that the consent decree dated 28th September, 2011 be marked as sat...
Tag this Judgment!Ultratech Cement Ltd. and Another Vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This is a leave petition under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent Act for combining the cause of action of passing off with the cause of action of infringement. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows: 2. Plaintiff No.2 is a flagship company of Aditya Birla Group, and of which Plaintiff No.1 is a subsidiary. The Plaintiffs are registered proprietors of various trade marks bearing the name 'UltraTech as part of the trade marks listed in para 8 of the plaint. Plaintiff No.1 is the registered proprietor of the trade marks listed at Sr.Nos.2 to 7, whilst Plaintiff No.2 is the registered proprietor of trade marks listed at Sr.Nos.1, 8 and 9 of the list. All these trade marks contain the words UltraTech or Ultra as part of them. Plaintiff No.2 is also an applicant for registration of the mark ULTRA. By a Deed of Assignment dated 30 September 2009, the trade marks containing the words UltraTech or Ultra standing in the name of Plaintiff No.1 were assigned to Plai...
Tag this Judgment!Nalini Prakash Ambagade and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, thro ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. Initially, this application was filed by Prakash Ramaji Ambagade and Smt. Nalini Prakash Ambagade, the accused no. 1 and 2 in the charge-sheet filed against them by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur, for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Applicant no. 1, who is now dead and who was accused no. 1, was the husband of applicant no.2, original accused no. 2. Accused no. 2 has been roped in the charge-sheet on the allegations that being wife of accused no. 1, she abetted accused no. 1, her husband, during the period from the year 1973 to the year 2001, to amass huge health which was disproportionate to his known source of income. The value of the disproportionate assets of accused no.1, as estimated by the prosecution, was of Rs.29,30,642/-. In these disproportionate assets, it was alleged, the shares of assets held ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Manik Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2015
1. All the applications are filed under section 439 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in C.R. Nos. 71/13 and 73/13 registered in Dharangaon Police Station, Dharangaon for the offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 477-A, r/w. 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) and sections 13 (1) (d) r/w. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act' for short). 2. Learned counsel for respondent/accused Shri. Gangakhedkar from Criminal Application Nos. 4527 and 4529 of 2013 argued the matters. The learned APP also argued and he supported the applicant by submitting that the chargesheet could not be filed due to absence of custody of the applicants and the investigation could not be completed. Learned counsel Mrs. Rashmi Gaur for respondent/accused in Criminal Application Nos. 4526 and 4528 of 2013 submitted that her client has taken away the brief fr...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Omprakash Gandhi Vs. Pusad Urbhan Co-op. Bank Ltd. through its S ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2015
Oral Judgment:1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forth with. Heard finally by consent.2. Question involved in this petition relates to territorial jurisdiction of a criminal Court to try an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act for short) and how the matters already instituted and pending at the stage of recording of evidence are to be dealt with, once it is found that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, in view of the law declared in this regard by the Hon'ble Apex Court.3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the drawee bank, which is State Bank of India, Darwha Branch, is situated at Darwha and not at Pusad, Pusad Court will not have jurisdiction to try the case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He submits that mere issuance of notice from Pusad will not confer any jurisdiction on Pusad Court, as has been clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dashra...
Tag this Judgment!Parmeshwar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant original accused No.1, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No.26/2011, thereby convicting the appellant [original accused No.1] for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to under go imprisonment for life and to pay fine of RS.500/- [Rs. Five hundred], in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six [6] months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: (a) Complainant Kalpana Parmeshwar Ghogare, r/o. Tungi [Bk], Tq. Ausa was the wife of accused No.1. She was married to accused No.1 prior to four years of the incident and has two daughters namely Sneha and Gokuli. Accused No.2 Baburao is her father-in-law, accused No.3 Sakhubai is her mother-in-law and accused No.4 Sunita is her sister-in-law. On 22.12.2010, at about 10.00 p.m., accused No.1 made demand of Rs.40,000/- and ill treated complainan...
Tag this Judgment!Horace Kevin Gonsalves and Another Vs. Prabha Ganpat Borkar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2015
1. By Writ Petition No.4797 of 2013 filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 9th May, 2013 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 20 of 2012 dismissing the application of the petitioner for staying the consent decree dated 14th September, 2012 and for other reliefs. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4797 of 2013 has filed civil application inter alia praying for appointment of the court receiver and for other reliefs in respect of the suit flats. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11790 of 2013 has impugned the order dated 17th June, 2013 passed by the trial court in Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2013 thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the consent terms and decree of consent terms both dated 16th September, 2012 obtained by the respondent Ms.Prabha Ganpat Borkar alias Ms.Prabha Dinesh Kannan. By consent of parties, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Some of the...
Tag this Judgment!Apparao Bahadurrao Ghuge Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-28-2015
Oral Judgment: (P.N. Deshmukh, J.) 1. This criminal appeal takes exception to the judgment dated 3/12/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial Case No.62/2011 thereby convicting appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly, it is the case of prosecution that accused was married to deceased Manda about 28 years prior to incident and they were having two sons, namely, Nitin and Akshay and daughter P.W.4 Manisha. At the time of incident, accused was working as Canal Inspector while ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax-II Vs. Jet Speed Audio (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2015
1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) challenges the order dated 22.6.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). 2. This appeal relates to Assessment Year 2005-06. The following questions of law have been proposed by the Appellant-Revenue for our consideration: "(A) Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the re-assessment order passed under Section 147 and holding the same as bad in law ? (B) Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that it was a case of change of opinion when the Assessing Officer had not expressed any opinion during the regular assessment proceeding ? (C) Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the issue of notice under Section 148 after the issue of under Section 154 is bad in law ?" 3. The respondent - Assessee had filed a return of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »