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.
Datamatics Global Services Limited Vs. Royal Datamatics Private Limite ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
1. This is an infringement suit filed by the Plaintiff in respect of its registered trade mark Datamatics . The Plaintiff seeks to permanently restrain the Defendant from infringing the trade mark Datamatics by using it in its name and business processes and also seeks damages for such infringement. The Notice of Motion seeks interlocutory relief in terms of the permanent injunction prayed for in the suit. 2. The Plaintiff was incorporated on 3 November 1987. It is, however, the Plaintiff's case that its promoters have been using the name Datamatics to represent their business from the year 1975, when they formed a company by the name of Datamatics Consultants Pvt. Ltd. The Plaintiff's case is that the word Datamatics is made up and coined by the founders of the Plaintiff, as an amalgam of the words data and matic . The word data is derived from Latin, and is a common word which means transmittable and storable computer information , whereas the word matic is a common suffix derived fr...
Ramesh Someshwarrao Tayde and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. Admit. Heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties. 2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the applicants who have been named in Crime No.314 of 2015 registered at Chandur Bazar Police Station, Taluka and District Amravati for the offence under provisions of Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the Penal Code). The applicants seek quashing of said First Information Report. 3. It is the case of non-applicant no.2 who was the father of one Purushottam that his joint family was possessing various agricultural lands. Some land was standing in the name of his son Purushottam. However, due to drought conditions said Purushottam had taken loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from a bank which had not being repaid. On 07.10.2015 at about 6 P.M. the son of non-applicant No.2 came home and was found to be tense. Said Purushottam told the non-applicant No.2 that he had borro...
Namdev Bhagwanrao Ghule Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
S.V. Gangapurwala, J. 1. The petitioner assails order/notification dated 01.12.2015 thereby bifurcating Agricultural Produce Market Committee Jintur (for short "A.P.M.C. Jintur") and constituting Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bori (for short "A.P.M.C. Bori"). 2. Mr. Hon, the learned senior counsel submits that, the A.P.M.C. Jintur is established in the year 1961. At that time there were 231 villages, but lateron due to establishment of new taluka only 170 villages are covered under the area of operation of A.P.M.C. Jintur. Village Bori is also under the area of operation of A.P.M.C. Jintur. Said village is hardly 13 to 15 kilometers away from Jintur. Most of the villages in the area of operation of A.P.M.C. Jintur are situated around Jintur within 25 to 30 K.M. radius. Jintur A.P.M.C. is near to all the villages and surrounding agriculturists. Earlier because of the local M.L.A. the Government had issued notification on 01st March 2004 bifurcating A.P.M.C. Jintur. The said not...
The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Washim and Others Vs. Har ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The Reference Court, acting under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has enhanced the compensation for acquisition of land, admeasuring 4 H and 31 R, out of Survey No.103 of Village Waigaul, to Rs.89,500/- per acre (Rs.2,23,750/- per hectare) as against the rate of Rs.23,000/- per hectare awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The compensation for 1,056 orange trees has also been granted at the rate of Rs.700/- per tree. In addition to it, the respondent-claimant is also held entitled to other statutory benefits. While awarding the interest, it is held by the Reference Court that the balance outstanding amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of taking possession for one year, and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till realization of the entire amount. This award of the Reference Court passed on 7-12-2006 is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal by the State Governme...
Blue Coast Hotels Limited Vs. IFCI Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. Index Sr.No.ContentsPage No.1Judgment Title.12Events-9 The Petitioner-Borrower-Blue Coast Hotels Limited (BCHL)'s case.9IFCI-Respondent No.1's case.12ITC Limited-the Purchaser's case.173High Court Proceedings.234Relevant provisions of SARFAESI Act.25 The Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002.36 Transfer of Property Act, 1882.445The submissions and Judgments by BCHL in WP No.222 of 2015.486Events and submissions of BCHL in Writ Petition No.1150 of 2015 referring to Section 14 Application.517Submissions and Judgments in Writ Petition No.2486 of 2015, to set aside the auction and the sale.578Judgments in opposition, and in additional in above Writ Petition No.2486 of 2015 by ITC.599Basic submissions of IFCI/ITC and supporting Judgments.59 COMMON REASONS 10Scheme and object of the Act.6511BCHL prayers and reliefs in respective petitions revolving around the property (Park Hyatt Hotel).7712 Description of the Immovable Properties including of Agriculture and moveable ...
Reid and Taylor (I) Limited and Others Vs. LandT Finance Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), the petitioners have impugned the arbitral award dated 6th May 2015 made by the learned arbitrator directing the petitioners jointly and severally to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.51,03,66,127.61 consisting of over due installment amounts, future loan installments, overdue compensation etc. with interest @18% p.a. on the said sum of Rs.51,03,66,127.61 from 16th March 2013 till payment and/or realization and arbitration cost. The respondent was the original claimant in the arbitral proceedings whereas the petitioners were the original respondents. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. On 13th October 2011, the respondent herein and the petitioner no.1 entered into a Facility Agreement by which the respondent sanctioned a term loan of Rs.50 crores to the petitioner no.1 on terms and conditions mentioned i...
Bablu Namdev Navratne Vs. Khimji Jaisa Sanda Krishna Enterprises and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the said Act"), the petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator. 2. There is no dispute that the arbitration agreement exists between the parties as referred in Clause 16 of the Partnership Deed dated 10th September 2011. The dispute arose between the parties. The petitioner herein filed a petition bearing No.56 of 2014 under Section 11 of the said Act, inter alia, praying for appointment of an arbitrator. The learned designate of the Chief Justice passed an order on 28th October 2014 holding that the said petition did not disclose any notice as required under Section 11(5) of the said Act having been served by the petitioner on the respondents and accordingly dismissed the said arbitration petition. 3. The petitioner, thereafter, issued a notice on 7th November 2014 addressed to the respondent no.1-partnership firm and two partners. The said notice was issued under ...
Letellier Shollet Gusmao Paulo Roncon Pereira and Another Vs. Iona Ere ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
1. The present appeal is preferred by the original plaintiffs against the order dated 20/10/2012 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, A Court, Margao, by which the application for Temporary Injunction Exh.D-3 is rejected. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Parties are referred to as per their original status. 3. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows : It is the case of the plaintiffs that there was no dispute between the interested parties in the Inventory Proceedings regarding auction, therefore, a formal meeting was held, wherein the plaintiff no.1 and the deceased husband of defendant no.1 and defendant nos.4 and 5 decided that the auction would be amicably held. Accordingly, a formal auction was held. The plaintiff no.1 was declared as successful bidder of Item No.12 while the defendant no.1's deceased husband was the successful bidder in respect of the property under Item No.7. 4. There is no dispute between the parties about the allotment of rest of the properties i....
Jitendra singh rajendra Singh kushwaha and Others Vs. Suresh Rajendra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
1. Rajendra Singh Kushwaha ( Rajendra ; the Testator ; the deceased ) died in Mumbai on 18th December 2009. The Plaintiffs are his elder son, Jitendra; Jitendra s wife, Suman; and their daughter, Nisha. All three Plaintiffs are Executors named in Rajendra s Will dated 10th May 2006. They seek probate to this Will. They are opposed by Rajendra s younger son, Jitendra s brother, Suresh. 2. Rajendra s wife, Damayanti, died before him in 1985. She bequeathed her entire estate to Rajendra, her husband. Rajendra and Damayanti had five children, three daughters and two sons. The three daughters, Prafulla Devendrapal Singh Chauhan ( Prafulla ), Aruna Dinesh Jayant ( Aruna ) and Bina Nishikant Singh Chauhan ( Bina ) are all married and have children. Jitendra and Suman have four children: Nisha (Plaintiff No. 3), Ajit, Manisha and Anjali. Suresh (Rajendra and Damayanti s younger son; Jitendra s brother) is married to Nita Suresh Kushwaha ( Nita ). They have two children, Yashraj and Swati. 3. R...
Bombay Forging Limited Vs. Manilal and Son
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. By this Appeal, an exception is taken to the judgment and order dated 26th June 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge on a Chamber Summons taken out for rejection of the Plaint. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held that the suit was barred and, therefore, the learned Single Judge proceeded to reject the Plaint under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the said Code"). 2. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned senior counsel representing the parties, a brief reference to the facts of the case is necessary. 3. The suit property is described in the Exhibit - A to the Plaint. The case made out by the Plaintiff is that the suit property is owned by the Defendant. Reliance is placed on a Deed of Lease executed on 4th April 1972 by the predecessor of the Defendant. It is contended that under the said lease, the suit property was leased to the Plaintiff for a period of 30 y...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »