Mumbai Court December 2015 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.
Lupin Limited Vs. Eris Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
1. The Plaintiff “ Lupin Limited has alleged that the Defendants and others are committing acts of infringement, passing off and unfair trading by using the impugned mark NEBISTOL?, which mark is identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's earlier adopted and registered trademark NEBISTAR?. The present Suit is filed by the Plaintiff to prevent acts of infringement, passing off and unfair trading. By the present Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff has inter alia sought an order of injunction against the Defendants from manufacturing and marketing any medicinal preparations/products by using the mark NEBISTOL. 2. According to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff i.e. Lupin Limited, is the registered proprietor of a word mark ˜NEBISTAR™. The mark was registered on 2nd July 2003, which at the time of application for registration was proposed to be used. The mark has been extensively used by the Plaintiff since 2004. The Plaintiff has stated in the plaint that the Pla...
Mangesh Balkrushna Bhoir Vs. Leena Mangesh Bhoir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
1. By this second appeal, the appellant has impugned the order passed by the Lower Appellate Bench granting reliefs in favour of the respondent in the civil appeal filed by the respondent. The appellant was the original petitioner in Marriage Petition and the respondent herein was the original respondent in the Marriage Petition. 2. On 15th June, 2002, the appellant was married to the respondent in Ganapati Temple, Manor. It was the case of the respondent wife that the appellant and the respondent were already staying together since 1996 and during the period between 1996 and 1999, the appellant had refused the proposal of the respondent to marry her. It was the case of the appellant that the respondent and her brother Mr.Jagdish Patil had come to the house of the appellant and given him Rs.10,000/- and asked him to marry with the respondent which the appellant had refused and had returned the said amount. The respondent filed a case (Regular Case No.203/1999) in Palghar Court under se...
Maharashtra Federation of University and College Teachers Organization ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. Background for a common Judgment 2. By consent, heard finally specifically in view of the following order passed by Supreme Court dated 25 March 2015 in Civil Appeal No.10759/2013 “ State of Maharashtra v. Asha Ramdas Bidkar, against the Judgment dated 1-8-2013 of Aurangabad Bench in Asha Ramdas Bidkar v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.11477/2010): 1. On the taking up of Civil Appeal No.10760 of 2013 we have come to learn that several Respondents as well as other Lectures/Assistant Professors similarly placed who are vitally affected by the core issue which has now been canvassed before us have neither been impleaded nor have been heard by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. We are further informed that as on date there are over hundred Writ Petitions pending in the Principal Bench and the Benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. I...
Anil Yashwant Karande Vs. Mangal Anil Karande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
1. By these two second appeals, the appellant has impugned the order passed by the Lower Appellate Bench granting reliefs in favour of the respondent in two separate civil appeals filed by the respondent. 2. On or about 16th June, 2002 the marriage was performed between the appellant and the respondent as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Pooja was organized after marriage on 21st June, 2002. It was alleged by the respondent that the respondent was forced to leave the matrimonial house along with her sisters by the appellant. It was the case of the respondent that on 30th June, 2002, the respondent and her relatives visited the house of the appellant when they were abused and the respondent was driven out of the matrimonial house. 3. On 12th August, 2002, an FIR came to be lodged by the respondent under sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, his father, mother and brother. The appellant and his family members were arrested by the police pursuant to s...
Amit @ Bandya Ashok Bhosale and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-joshi, J. 1. As these three appeals are arising out of one and the same judgment and order dated 28th August, 2007 of Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No.38 of 2007, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. By the impugned judgment, appellants, who are original accused Nos 1 to 6 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. Out of said compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-, the amount of Rs.25,000/-, is directed to be paid to the parents of deceased Sanjay and remaining amount of Rs.25,000/-, is directed to be paid to the wife of the deceased Somnath. 3. By these appeals, the appellants are challenging their conviction and sentence. For the sake of convenience, the appellants in these appeals are referred to by their original nomenclature as accused Nos 1 ...
Jagjitsingh Vs. Shashikant Ramesh Tayde and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. In Motor Accident Claim Petition No.241 of 2001 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the respondent No.1-claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.3,81,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition, i.e. 10-9-2001, till its realization, after adjusting the amount already paid by the appellant towards no-fault liability. The owner of the vehicle is before this Court challenging the decision of the Tribunal. 2. The contentions of Ms Umale, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, are that the appellant was not served with the notice of Claim Petition No.241 of 2001 and, therefore, he had no opportunity to contest the claim, that the earlier Claim Petition No.67 of 1993 filed by the respondent No.1-claimant was dismissed in default on 6-3-1995 and, therefore, the second Claim Petition No.241 of 2001 was not maintainable for the same relief, and that the vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2-Na...
Chairman Cum Managing Director, Western Coalfields Ltd. Coal Estate, C ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
P.C. 1. By following the procedure analogous to provisions of Order 47 Rule 8 of the Order of Civil Procedure Code 1908, the learned Counsel for the parties have been reheard on the question as regards entitlement of respondent No.1 to receive amount of gratuity despite the fact that he has been dismissed from service after holding departmental enquiry. 2. On behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted by Shri A. M. Gordey, learned Senior Counsel that a dismissed employee was not entitled to receive gratuity. Reference was made to the provisions of Section 4(1) of the said Act to urge that as respondent No.1 had been dismissed from service, he would not be covered by provisions of Section 4(1)(a) to (c). These clauses contemplate entitlement for gratuity on superannuation, retirement, resignation, death or disablement. Reference was also made to provision of Section 4(6) of the said Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Y.P. Sarabhai Vs. Union Bank of India an...
Indu G.N. Rane, Principal, People's Higher Secondary School (Governmen ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking parity in pay scale, with her counterpart in a Government Higher Secondary School. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Principal, in the People's Higher Secondary School, Panaji (respondent no. 3) on 22.11.2000 in the pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500. The appointment of the petitioner was eventually approved by the respondent no. 1. The material dispute pertains to two circulars issued by the respondent no. 1 dated 28.05.1998 and 31.03.1999. It appears that by the circular dated 28.05.1998, it was stipulated that the post of Principal in the Higher Secondary School having a total student enrollment between 120 and 300 shall carry a pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500. By a subsequent circular dated 31.03.1999, it was clarified that in case of marginally higher strength of students i.e. upto 350 students, the post of Principal will carry the pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200, with a rider that the said p...
Rekha Pramodrao Deshmukh and Others Vs. Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan Shega ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier, the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length by issuing Rule and making the same returnable forthwith. The short question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether provisions of Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, the said Act) would entitle a landlord to recover possession of premises given for business purposes on expiry of the license granted in that regard. 2. Aforesaid question arises on the following facts. An agreement was entered into between each petitioner and respondent No.1 by which each petitioner was granted license for a shop to conduct business of sale of prasad for a period of eleven months. Pursuant thereto each petitioner was put in possession of their respective shops. The possession of the respective shops were not handed over to respondent No.1 after expiry of the licences. As the petitioners apprehended dispossession, suit fo...
Grand View Estates Private Limited Vs. Vishwanath Namdeo Patil and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Both these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment since the same order passed by the learned Single Judge has been challenged in both these appeals. 2. An interesting question falls for consideration before this court viz. Whether, in an adjudication proceedings before the Official Liquidator, dues of the workers are to be calculated from the date of actual winding up of the Company by the Company Court or whether they should be calculated from the date of appointment of the Provisional Liquidator with full powers to sell the assets or from the date on which there is cessation of work on account of various valid legal reasons? 3. The Company was wound up by the final order of winding up which was passed by this Court on 05/09/2005. Provisional Liquidator, however, was appointed with full powers including the power to sell the Company's assets on 13/02/2002. The workers filed claim before the Official Liquidator claiming their dues from the date of winding up...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »