Mumbai Court March 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.
Jagdish Gopal Kamath and Others Vs. Lime and Chilli Hospitality Servic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
INDEXAOVERVIEW3BFACTS6CISSUES, SUBMISSIONS and FINDINGS9C1Infringement10C2Passing Off33DTHE DEFENDANTS WRITTEN ARGUMENTS43EDELAY AND BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE46FFINAL ORDER AND CONCLUSION49 A. OVERVIEW 1. In a narrow lane, one of three that branches off to the east from the roundabout at Maheshwari Udyan in Mumbais central area of Matunga, there stands an unassuming eatery. A few steps lead into it. The space is not large: a few tables at the entry level with the proprietor at a high seat at the counter to the right of the entrance. Opposite the entrance is the kitchen with its serving hatches. A steep staircase to the left leads to a low-ceilinged mezzanine floor. Here, the space is even more cramped. On both levels, patrons share tables: large groups or families may spread across several tables and a solitary diner may find himself rubbing elbows with a complete stranger. This is Caf Madras, the South Indian or, more accurately, Udipi cuisine specialty sit-down restaurant owned and man...
Iqbaluddin Ziauddin Pirzade Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
S.S. Shinde, J.: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. 3. This Criminal Writ Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes an exception to the Order dated 19.01.2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, against the petitioner in Ext. Case/S.R./No./21/2014 under Section 56 [1] [b] and Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner received notice from the office of Sub Divisional Police Officer, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, informing him that, there is a proposal to extern the present petitioner from Jalgaon and adjacent Districts, and that he should remain present and give explanation as to why said proposal be not made, and for this purpose the said notice contained details of 5 crimes registered against the petitioner at MIDC Police Station, Jalgaon. Pursuant to the said notice, the present petitioner was present in the office of Sub D...
Punjab and Maharashtra Co-op. Bank Ltd. Recovery Department Vs. Puri I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 6th September 2011 rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under : 2. The petitioner was the original claimant in the arbitration petition whereas the respondents herein were the original respondents. On 19th January 2001, Mr.Surinder Singh Puri became a member of the petitioner-Bank. It was the case of the respondents that one M/s. Combine Group Company (CGC) awarded a contract to undertake Kuwait Sewerage Renovation Project -Phase VII. The said M/s. Combine Group Company had appointed one M/s. A1 Salhiya General Trading and Contracting Company (A1 Salhiya) as sub-contractors for supply and construction of micro tunneling works including supply of all materials, equipments, labour etc. The said M/s.A1 Salhiya General Trading and ...
Sumer Builders Pvt Ltd. Vs. Narendra Gorani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. This Appeal takes exception to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10 October 2013 under which the learned Single Judge revoked the leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to file a section 9 Petition under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act). 2. The leave was initially granted on the basis that a material part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, and therefore, on granting leave under Clause XII, this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the section 9 Petition. In a nutshell, vide the impugned order, the learned Judge upheld the contention of the Respondent that the dispute in the proposed arbitration between the parties was in respect of the land situated at Indore which was owned by the Respondent and which was to be developed by the Appellant. In other words, the learned Judge held that the dispute between the parties in the proposed arbitration would amount ...
Ishan S. Darekar and Others Vs. University of Pune and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
Chief Justice 1. This group of petitions raises an interesting question about interplay between Regulations of the Council of Architecture on the one hand and the Rules of University of Pune on the other hand regarding completion of a part of Bachelor of Architecture Course within a stipulated period and regarding the number of subjects for which ATKT (Allow To Keep Term) may be allowed. 2. B. Arch. Course is of 5 years and on completion of the said course, the degree of B. Arch. is conferred upon the student. The Council of Architecture is a statutory body constituted under the Architecture Act, 1972. The Council of Architecture regulates the minimum standards of Architectural Education in India. As per the regulations framed by the Council of Architecture, there are 12 papers in each academic year, out of which 4 papers are theory papers and 8 papers are sessional papers. Every academic year of B. Arch. course is divided into two semesters wherein every candidate appears for sessiona...
Anil Govind Naik Vs. State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. At the request of Shri Rohit Bras de Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, leave to amend. The amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard Shri R.B. De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and Shri R. Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 . 3. Rule. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 4. The above writ petition, inter alia, seeks a direction that the Memorandum dated 20th December, 2014 bearing No. SMC/PHSS/2014-15/67 issued by respondent No.4 to hold an inquiry against the petitioner under the Goa School Education Act, 1984, Rules of 1986 and the CCS Conduct Rules as patently illegal, unconstitutional and for a writ directing the respondent No.4 to withdraw the report dated 30.1.2015 and the recommendations dated 31.1.2015. 5. Before w...
Vinod Hinigorani Vs. The Securities and Exchange Board of India and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
AnujaPrabhudessai, J. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner herein is challenging the validity of the orders dated 18.12.2014 and 29.12.2014 passed by the Recovery Officer of the respondent no.1 above and further to order his release from Byculla District Prison. 2. The petitioner claims that he was a non existing Chairman of the company known as Adan Camsof Ltd. and Kolar Biotech Ltd and that he had no role in the day to day affairs and the management of the said companies. 3. The petitioner claims that the respondent had initiated recovery proceeding against him and drawn up certificate nos. 211 and 231 both dated 11.7.2014 and certificate dated 288 of 2014 dated 16.7.2014. The respondent had also issued notice of demand dated 11.7.2014 and 16.7.2014 under Rule III and Part I of second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961 r/w. Section 28-A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India, 1992, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay dues...
Sanjay Vitthal Pachaghare Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7th January, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, by which the appellant-accused no.1-Sanjay Vitthal Pachaghare was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month, the present appeal was filed by the appellant-accused in this Court. FACTS : 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant-accused Sanjay married with Vandana, daughter of Kaniram Sonar, on 24th June,1991. Vandana was serving as a Teacher at village Benoda while the appellant was serving as a Teacher at Chandur Railway. Due to her employment, Vandana was residing at Benoda village in a rented house and the appellant-Sanjay used to visit Benoda once in a week. After the marriage, Vandana visited her pa...
Rajesh Jatihusain Ansari Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
1. The appellant was prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under Sections 328 and 379 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mumbai, after holding a trial, found him guilty and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 8 years, and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 328 of the IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order convicting and sentencing him, and has, therefore, appealed to this court. 2. The prosecution case, as was put forth before the trial court, may, in brief, be stated thus: JitendraRaj Mangalram (PW3) on 24th October 2011, had gone to Kurla Terminus Railway Station for going to his native place near Patna. He was standing in the queue for purchasing a railway ticket. At that time, a person, not previously known ...
Sayyed Noor Vs. Sayyed Minya and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
1. This revision has been filed by Sayyed Noor original defendant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant' of Regular Civil Suit No.404/2013, filed by respondent No.1 original plaintiff (hereinafrer referred to as plaintiff). The plaint filed as R.C.S. No.404/2013 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gangapur is for possession of 40 R land from Gat No.97, situated at Jogeshwari, Taluka Gangapur and for removing the obstruction to way of 20 ft. x 600 ft. The suit has been brought against applicant defendant No.1 as well as his children respondents No.2 to 5 - original defendant No.2 to 5. 2. The defendant filed application Exhibit 16 in the suit, claiming that in view of provisions of Order II Rule 2 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C. for short), the suit deserved to be dismissed as there was earlier R.C.S. No.30/2011 filed by plaintiff for the same cause of action and which suit had been withdrawn unconditionally and so the suit was barred. The app...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »