Mumbai Court May 2016 Judgments
Neel Electro Techniques and Others Vs. Neelkanth Power Solutions and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2016
A.S. Oka, J. 1. As per the order passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, this Appeal has been specially assigned to the Division Bench presided over by one of us (A.S.Oka,J.). By this appeal, the appellants who are the original appellants have taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 24th June 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge on the Notice of Motion No.54 of 2012 in a suit No.55 of 2012. 2. The appellants filed a suit No.55 of 2012 before the learned Single Judge for injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner directly or indirectly using the mark Neel or Neelkanth (Exhibits A and S respectively to the plaint) and its domain name www.neelpower.com or any mark, device, logo, lable etc which is similar and/or deceptively similar to the registered mark of the appellant bearing registration no.1075665. Various other reliefs were claimed including the relief of damages. Temporary injunction was claimed by filing the aforesaid Notice of Motion seeking r...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Namdeo Bhukan Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Home Ministry)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2016
V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. Rule. Respondent waives service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. 2. A very short question is involved in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against the Notification issued by the Home Department dated 23.02.2012. By this Notification, Rule 4 of the Furlough and Parole Rules was amended and after sub-rule (10), sub-rule 11 to 19 were added. 3. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of IPC by Judgment and Order dated 24.5.2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2011. In our opinion, the only relevant fact is that the conviction and sentence has been interalia recorded for the offence punishable under Section 364 of IPC i.e kidnapping. 3A. The case of the petitioner is that he preferred an application for furlough, however, in view of the notification dated 23.02.2012, he took it back. The petitioner took his application for furlough back becaus...
Tag this Judgment!Rattan India Power Limited Vs. The State of Maharashtra through the Ch ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari and after setting aside adverse orders, a direction to the respondents to apply Irrigation Potential Restoration Charges (hereinafter referred to as IRC), as per Government Resolution dated 21.02.2004 with respect to the water allocated to the petitioner, based on deficit in water for irrigation as per the latest report. The prayers have been amended and a prayer to restrain the respondents from recovering interest as per demand letters dated 17.01.2013 and 04.02.2013 has been added. Hiwever, no arguments are advanced on this interest aspect. 2. It appears that the petition was presented at Bombay as Writ Petition No. 1487 of 2013 and there, on 05.05.2014, this Court noted that ad interim order / arrangement was operating as per statement of respondents made before it on 26.02.2013. On 17.06.2014, the Court noticed that the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Pankaj Rajnikant Bhat Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2016
P.C. 1. This Application is moved for bail, as the applicant/accused is facing charges under sections 376, 354(C), 384, 506(1), 509 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.87 of 2016 registered with Charkop Police Station, Mumbai. The prosecutrix has lodged the complaint against the applicant/accused on 30th March, 2016. 2. It is the case of the prosecutrix that since 2002, she and her family knew the family of applicant/accused, as they are staying in the same Society. The applicant/accused was friendly with her. However, in the year 2011 as per her case, the applicant took his and her photograph in an objectionable pose and thereafter he was after her. The applicant insisted that she should keep sexual relations with him otherwise he would circulate that photograph and will show it to her husband also. So, she was scared. The applicant/accused used to send her obscene messages. He forced her to keep sexual relations with him. She succumbed to pressure. The applicant also demanded money f...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2016
Per Court: 1. The applicant/accused No. 1 has preferred this application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing Criminal Case No. 57/1994, pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara as well as to set aside the order dt. 26.04.2010 passed in the matter granting permission to complainant to lead secondary evidence. 2. Before appreciating the submissions advanced, it is necessary to consider few facts leading to filing of the present application. The respondent filed criminal complaint for offence u/s 18(a)(i) r/w Section 16(a) and punishable u/s 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short the said Act ) as against nine accused which includes the applicant/accused No. 1 alleging therein that the accused Nos. 1 to 7 are the Directors of M/s. Dujohn Laboratories Ltd., Indore the accused No. 9. Accused No. 8 is the employee of accused No. 9 Company, who works in the capacity as Dy. General Manager. The accused were holding license in Form 28, bearing No. 28689 dt. 22.2.89 valid...
Tag this Judgment!Fida Hussain Yahyabhai Bohra Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S.Z. Qazi, advocate for the applicant and Shri K.R. Lule, A.P.P. for the non-applicant. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicant has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application filed by the applicant seeking permission to leave India for pilgrimage purposes i.e. for performing Hajj and visiting Balalaika. 4. The applicant is being prosecuted for the offenses punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 13(K)(D) I, II, III of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This Court by the order dated 14th March, 2013 granted bail to the applicant, however, imposed condition that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. As the applicant intends to go for Hajj and to go to Balalaika. The applicant had filed applica...
Tag this Judgment!Partur Advocate Bar Association Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through it's ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2016
(As per Rule 1 of Chapter XI of the Appellate Side Rules, 1960, signed Judgment is pronounced by Shri A.S. Oka, J at Bombay as Shri C.V. Bhadang, J is sitting at the Bench at Goa.) A.S. Oka, J. 1. The issue involved in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is as regards the establishment of the Courts of the District and Additional Sessions Judge as well as the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Partur, Taluka Partur, District Jalna. The issue which arises for consideration is for establishing the said Courts, which is the decision making authority, the State Government or the High Court Administration. 2 With a view to appreciate the submissions canvassed across the Bar, a brief reference to the facts of the case will be necessary. The Petitioner is a Bar Association of the Advocates at Partur. At Partur, which is a Taluka Headquarter, there is a Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the Judicial Magistrate First Class. The Petitioner Association has been espo...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhabai and Others Vs. Fulchand
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Pursuant to the notice for final disposal of the appeal issued on 26-4-2016, the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length on the following substantial question of law: Whether the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963? 2. The respondent is the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.506 of 2003. This suit was filed for seeking specific performance of agreement dated 27-3-2002 in respect of the agricultural land admeasuring 0.31R. The original defendant Pandurang was served with the suit summons. He, however, expired during pendency of the suit and the present appellants who are his legal heirs were brought on record. The written statement filed earlier by Pandurang came to be adopted. The trial Court on 16-2-2008 decreed the suit. The respondent herein filed Special Darkhast No.159/2008 on 24-4-2008. The present appellants entered their appearance therein on 29-7-200...
Tag this Judgment!Jyoti Pratapsingh Chadel and Others Vs. Collector, Nanded and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-05-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioners question propriety, legality and validity of order passed by respondent No.1 - Collector, Nanded dated 31-01-2015 in the case bearing No.2013/MCA/K1/T1/CR-34, invoking provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "MLAMD Act"), whereunder petitioners have been held to be disqualified to continue as councillors for the remainder of the term of Mahur Nagar Panchayat (hereinafter, 'MNP'). 2. General elections to seventeen-members Nagar Panchayat of Mahur were held on 11-12-2011. In said elections to MNP, petitioners among others, were set up as candidates of Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). About eight candidates of NCP were declared elected as councillors of MNP on 12-12-2011. Party wise strength of seventeen-member MNP had been as under: Congress (I) 04 Shiv Sena 04 NCP 08 Independent 01 3. After hearing learned counsel for parties, it appears to be a case, wherein, post-po...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Depar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-05-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGP appearing for the respondent State. 2. This Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad [for short MAT ] in Original Application No.323 of 2015, and also the order dated 30th May, 2015 passed by respondent no.2 [Exhibit-A]. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by respondent no. 2 to effect the petitioner s mid-tenure transfer from Jalgaon District and / or the Nashik Range is totally in violation and disregard of the provisions contained in the proviso to Section 22N (1) of the Maharashtra Police [Amendment and Continuance] Act, 2014. It is submitted that the transfer of the petitioner is before completion of normal tenure in the Nashik Range and the said transfer is contrary to the policy of the State Government reflected in the Circular dated 18th March, 2015...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »