Mumbai Court June 2016 Judgments
Zainab Bee Vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharwade
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Since both these writ petitions raised challenge to the judgment of the appellate Court between the same parties, they are being decided by this common judgment by issuing Rule and making the same returnable forthwith. Respective Counsel waive notice. 2. Writ Petition No.211 of 2015 has been filed by the original plaintiff - landlady who had filed suit for eviction of the respondent - original defendant under provisions of Section 15, 16(1)(a),(g),(h) and (i) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999 (for short, the said Act). The suit was decreed by the trial Court while the appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent partly and set aside the decree for eviction. The landlady being aggrieved by setting aside of the decree for eviction has filed the said writ petition. Writ Petition No.6734/2015 is filed by the tenant challenging the judgment of the appellate Court to the extent of determination of standard rent @ Rs.5000/per month. For the sake of conve...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Concord Enviro Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
1. The Plaintiff claims injunctive reliefs on the basis of infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trade marks, infringement of copyright and passing off, on the ground that the logo of the Defendant, (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned logo of the Defendant" - Exhibit-E page 52 of the Plaint) is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trade marks consisting of a distinctive logo (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff's logo" -- Exhibit-A pages 42/43 of the Plaint). 2. On behalf of the Plaintiff, the following submissions are made: 2.1 That the Plaintiff's claim for infringement is based on the registration of the Plaintiff's trade marks described in Exhibit-B to the Plaint at page 44. The Plaintiff's logo is an essential feature of each of the said trade marks. 2.2 That the Defendant is using and/or is intending to use its impugned logo in respect of goods falling in Classes 7, 9 and 11 and services falling in Class 40. The Plaintiff has registration under those ...
Tag this Judgment!Vivekanand Karekar Vs. Smt. Sneha Karekar @ Shilpa Karekar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule in both the petitions. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally, by consent of parties. 2. Both these petitions are between the same parties and can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The petitioner has filed Matrimonial Petition No.51/2013 against the respondent, for annulment of marriage under Articles 18, 19 and 20 read with Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Law of Marriage, which petition is pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge at Bicholim. 4. The case made out in the petition is that the respondent is a transgender and as such, is not able to discharge the matrimonial obligations. 5. The petitioner filed an application (Exhibit-24), for a direction to the respondent to subject herself for medical examination. It was contended that looking to the controversy involved, it is necessary that the respondent is medically examined. That application, was opposed by the respondent. 6. The learned trial Court by the impug...
Tag this Judgment!Titan Industries Limited and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner has challenged the continuance of the proceedings in Summary Criminal Case No.515 of 2005 pending in the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad. It is stated that the State had made the Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1985 applicable to the petitioner. 2. It is pointed out that this Court by its order dated 06.09.2005 had passed the following order while granting interim relief:- "1) Heard Shri. P.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2) Learned counsel has referred to a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court as well as the interim order passed by this Court (Bombay Bench) in Writ Petition No.1848/2002 dated 22nd July 2002. 3) Considering all these facts, Notice. 4) Shri. D.V. Tele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appears for all the respondents, wavies notice and seeks time to take instructions and file Reply. 5) Stand over for six weeks. 6) In the meanwhile, inte...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd.Iqbal @ Munna s/o Abdul Sattar and Another Vs. State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. These two appellants are before this Court since they are aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, dated 3rd of April, 2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge - 4, Nagpur in Session Trial No.548 of 2009. By the said judgment, the appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were directed to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- by each of them and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case which was unfurled during the course of the trial is stated herein under :- The Criminal Law was set into motion on 9th of August, 2009 by Smt.Sk.Jamila wd/o Sk.Abid, first informant, by lodging her report at Exh.62. When first informant had been to Police Station Lakadganj that time Pandurang Rangari, A.S.I., (PW 8) was on duty as a Night Officer. He registered the Crime vide Crime ...
Tag this Judgment!Nandkumar Vs. Girish and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 890/2000 (Old Special Civil Suit No. 67/1995), which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar and also against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 9/2005, which was pending in the Court of District Judge-1, Ahmednagar. The previous number of the suit was Special Civil Suit No. 67/1995. Present proceeding is filed by original defendant No. 1 and the first appeal was also filed by the present appellant. There are concurrent findings in favour of respondent - Girish Madan. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of this appeal can be stated as follows :- The suit was filed by respondent - Girish Madan for relief of partition and separate possession of his share from property bearing C.T.S. No. 3349, having area of 181.4 Sq. Mtrs. situated in Ahmednagar city. The property is given Municipal House No. 2542 for assessment purpose by the Local Body. It is the case...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Gurudas Timblo and Others Vs. Hemlatabai Ravikant Darne alias ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent nos.1 and 2 waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition at the instance of the original defendant nos.1 to 6 is to the order dated 19/07/2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao, whereby, application dated 29/08/2013 in Special Civil Suit No.102/2001/A filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2, who are the original plaintiffs, for production of the document (D-20) has been allowed and the same is directed to be "treated as a secondary evidence". The respondent nos.3 to 5 are original defendant nos.7 to 9 before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus: That the respondent nos.1 and 2 have filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that the final judgment/order dated 15/03/2000 passed in inventory proceedings no.72/1998 approving the partition, be declared as null and void and f...
Tag this Judgment!Bindiya H. Malkani and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
A.K. Menon, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) assails the order dated 30th August, 2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The appellants are heirs of the original assessee-appellant ("the appellant"). The impugned order relates to Assessment Year 1989-90. 2. This appeal was admitted on 1st April, 2004 on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the capital gains arising to the appellant on the transfer of the impugned plot of land vide agreement dated 29th November, 1988 is short term capital gains and not long term capital gains as contended by the appellant?" 3. The revenue was represented at the time of admission and even waived service. However none appears today for the Revenue. The revenue has also not filed any affidavit in reply. 4. The issue that arises in this Petition lies within a narr...
Tag this Judgment!Joao and Others Vs. Jose Antonio Rodrigues and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. On 28/01/2016, a notice for final disposal was issued in this petition. The record shows that the respondents were also represented by their Counsel on 04/05/2016. However, today, none appears for the respondents. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the petition is being disposed of finally. 2.The petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who are challenging the order dated 28/12/2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Panaji in Regular Civil Suit No.93/2010/D, whereby their application (Exh.31), for permission to lead secondary evidence, by production of negatives of some photographs, produced on record, has been rejected. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Suresh Pandharipande vs. Parag Pandharipande; 2016(2) ALL M R 563, in order to submit that the existence of original document and its loss, are the two factors necessary, to permit the petitioners to lead evidence. He,...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Faruq Shabir and Others Vs. Govindrao Ramu Vasave and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
R.M. Borde, J. 1. The learned Single Judge, while dealing with the writ petition, by an order dated 23.01.2012, was pleased to formulate following two issues for consideration of the larger Bench: I. Whether the term aghadi or front as defined U/Sec. 2(a) of the Disqualification Act of 1986 would mean the party or aghadi on whose candidature the councillor is elected or would also include the aghadi of two or more municipal parties coming into existence after the elections are held? II. Whether the term original political party or aghadi appearing in Sec. 5 would mean the party at its National level or would mean a municipal party? 2. We have heard arguments advanced by Shri P.M.Shah, learned Senior Counsel i/by Mr.S.P.Shah, advocate for petitioners, Shri Mukul Kulkarni, learned advocate for Respondent No.1, Shri Umakant P. Giri, learned advocate for Respondent No.2 and Mr.A.B. Girase, learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.3. 3. The facts in nutshell, giving rise to the referenc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »