Mumbai Court March 2016 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.
Federal Brands Ltd. Vs. Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Order: 1. This is a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The notice of motion seeks a temporary injunction in respect of use by the Defendant of the mark LIVE IN in respect of jeans, apparel and clothing. 2. It is the case of the Plaintiff that in 1992, Hybo-Hindustan, a partnership firm and a sister concern of the Plaintiff (which was formerly known as Microtex India Ltd.), conceived and adopted the mark LIVE-IN in respect of jeans, apparel and clothing. Ever since 1992, Hybo-Hindustan has been using the mark on jeans inter alia through the Plaintiff as a permitted user of the former. It is submitted that Hybo-Hindustan has continued to exercise control and supervision over the Plaintiff's use of the mark and that the mark LIVE-IN has been continuously and openly used by the Plaintiff since then. It is claimed that the Plaintiff's products under the particular trade mark are presently sold through a distribution network of 2600 multi brand outlets and 30 distributors. ...
Shree Sati Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. This Appeal is filed by the Original Respondent/Petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act) whereby a challenge is made to the order dated 31 January 2014 passed by the learned Judge after hearing the parties and rejected the Petition and thereby maintained the reasoned award passed by the Arbitrator who was appointed based upon an Agreement between the parties referring to the transaction/contract in question. Admittedly, the Appellant inspite of due service of notice by the Arbitrator including paper publication with full knowledge about the arbitration proceedings deliberately not participated before the Tribunal. Instead preferred a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the Arbitrator from conducting the Arbitration proceedings. A statement is made after hearing the parties that the Suit is also dismissed so also Notice of motion taken ...
Anchor Offshore Services Ltd. (AOSL) Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
G.S. Patel, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. We have heard Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Setalvad, learned Senior Counsel for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5. We have considered their respective submissions and, with their assistance, the material on record. 2. The challenge in this Writ Petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to what is effectively a blacklisting order dated 5th November 2015 passed by the 2nd Respondent, the Executive Director of the 1st Respondent, the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited ( ONGC ). By this order (Exhibit A , pages 86 to 87A)the Petitioner ( Anchor ) has been banned from all business dealings with ONGC for two years. The ostensible reason for this ban is that Anchor allegedly violated an Integrity Pact , a formal and binding contract between Anchor and ONGC. The impugned order in terms s...
Arun and Another Vs. Venkatrao and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, heard finally at admission stage. 2. The applicants are the original accused in R.C.C. No.17 of 2011. By the impugned order dated 27.3.2014, learned Magistrate has issued process against the applicants-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. The applicants-original accused had challenged the said order by filing Criminal Revision No.62 of 2014 before the Sessions Court at Latur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Latur, by judgment and order dated 23.11.2015, dismissed the revision with costs. Hence, this criminal application. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present Criminal Application, are as follows:- a) Respondent No.1-original complaint has filed complaint before learned J.M.F.C. Renapur against the applicants-original accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. The learned J.M.F.C. had directed investigation...
Sneha Fulchand Hargude and Another Vs. Joint Director of Technical Edu ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally, as the notice for final disposal was issued to the respondents on 20/11/2015 and the respondents are duly served. 2. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the communication of the respondent No.3-College of Pharmacy, dated 18/11/2015, rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners for permission to appear at the M.Pharm., Part-I Examination, on the directions of the University. 3. Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus The petitioners had appeared at the B.Pharm. Final Examination in Summer 2015 and were declared unsuccessful in some of the subjects. The petitioners, therefore, applied for revaluation in terms of the Direction of the Nagpur University, bearing No.5 of 2004. It is the case of the petitioners that though the revaluation result is required to be declared within a period of 45 days, the result was not declared by the University within a reaso...
Sayed Minhajuddin and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
P.C. 1. This Writ Petition is preferred for challenging the order dated 8th December 2015 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Malegaon, in Sessions Case No.81 of 2009, thereby allowing the application filed by Original Informant, the Respondent No.2 herein, for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the Petition are to the effect that the Respondent No.2, who is Original Informant in Sessions Case No.81 of 2009, is the elder brother of deceased Shahid, who was married with one Sayeda Shahana. After marriage, while they were residing at Sahil Plaza, Aurangabad, Sayeda died due to burn injuries. However, on the basis of the report of her brother, Shahid, along with his father, was prosecuted under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC in Sessions Case No.160 of 2009. During the pendency of that case, the brother of Respondent No.2 committed suicide. In the suicide note left behind by him, he has clearly attributed reason for his suicide to the false implicati...
Murlidhar Teckchand Gandhi and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. The challenge in this petition is to the acquisition of the petitioners property bearing CTS No. 165, 165/1 to 51 admeasuring 2668.11 sq. meters, at Village Kanjur, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai (said property) vide Notification No. DAL/2002/LR-459/SLUM-1 dated 31 May 2006 issued under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act). 2. In the years 1976, 1986, the said property was declared as 'slum area' in terms of Section 4 of the Slum Act. However, the declarations were set aside by the Slum Tribunal, on certain grounds, which are not relevant for deciding the issues raised, in the present petition. The said property was once again declared as 'slum area' by Notification dated 20 August 1997. The petitioners appeal questioning said declaration was dismissed by the Slum Tribunal by its order dated 12 December 1997. Thereupon, the petitioners instituted a writ petition no. 851 of 1998 challenging the Slum Tribunal's o...
Prakash Baburao Ingale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
1. Learned counsel Mrs. J.P. Akolkar fairly submits that since 1996 appellant has not contacted her. Her all efforts of communication have failed. In view of this, she prays that she be discharged from conducting the trial. Taking into consideration the statement of Mrs. Akolkar, she is discharged from appearing in the matter. In view of this, this Court has requested Advocate Mr. Subir Sarkar to espouse the cause of the appellant. He has graciously accepted to do so. Since respondent No.2 is not represented by anyone, this Court had requested Advocate Rupesh Zade to espouse the cause of the respondent. He has graciously accepted to do so. 2. Appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable under section 304 Part - II of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years by Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj in Sessions Case No.17 of 1996 vide Judgment and Order dated...
Union of India, Through Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Int ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2011 rendered in Criminal Case No. 1/C/2005/A passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Goa, Margao, thereby acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: On 14.07.2003 at about 14:00 hours when the respondent accompanied by two ladies namely, Smt. Shobha Khira and Ms. Tina Khira had checked in to board Indian Airlines Flight to Sharjah, officers of the appellant having received prior information intercepted the respondent and the two ladies accompanying him in order to find out if they were carrying with them any goods in contravention of the provisions of Section 135(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. Upon interrogation, it was noticed that the respondent ...
Shakti Insulated Wires Pvt.Ltd. and Others Vs. Great View Properties P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
1. The company appeal impugns an order of the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench ( CLB ) allowing the petition of the first Respondent, under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 ( Act ), declaring it to be the owner of 1980 shares of the Petitioner company and directing the latter to rectify the register of members accordingly. 2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated, as follows : One Jayalaxmi Holdings Pvt.Ltd. ( JHPL ) held 1980 shares of the Appellant company ( subject shares ). In pursuance of a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by this Court, all assets and liabilities of JHPL were transferred to the first Respondent. The assets included the subject shares. The first Respondent, thereafter, applied for registration of such transfer and inclusion of its name in the register of members. The Appellant rejected the application on the ground that the transfer of shares was in breach of the relevant Articles of Association providing for a right of pre-emption. This rejection was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »