Mumbai Court June 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.
Dr. Gaurav Ramesh Parekh Vs. Member of the Appropriate Authority @ Med ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25/09/2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. by which the application filed by the petitioner seeking discharge from Reg.Cri.Case No.529/2011 has been rejected. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15/05/2015 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Court, Dhule by which the criminal revision application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed 3. I have heard Mr.Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP on behalf of the respondents at length. 4. The issue raised by the petitioner is whether the complaint filed by the respondent and registered as RCC No.529/2011 would be maintained in the light of the contentions of the respondents/complainants? 5. The petitioner is being prosecuted vide RCC No.529/2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. Dhule on the alleg...
Gajanan Sadashiv Hivarkar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nandurbar, thereby issuing process against accused No.1 to 15 out of whom 13 are before this Court. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge at Nandurbar dated 11.11.2014 by which the Revision Petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. The contentions of the petitioners can be summarized as follows :- (A) A statement is made across the bar that this petition is restricted only to the extent of petitioner Nos.5 to 13. (B) On 16.05.1998 the petitioner No.1 got married to respondent No.2 as per Hindu custom and rituals. A girl child is born out of the wedlock. (C) On 27.02.2001 the petitioner No.1 married petitioner No.2. (D) Respondent No.2, who is the first wife of the first petitioner, filed a complaint with the learned...
Imran Shahid Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
P.C. 1. As both the applications are arising out of Crime No.II56 of 2014 registered by Kashimira Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (In short, "the NDPS Act") on 29/09/2014, same are decided by the common Judgment and Order. 2. In the present crime, there are in all four accused. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court, while accused No.3's application for bail is stated to be pending before the trial Court and applicant No.4 is released by the trial Court by its order dated 28/01/2016. 3. It appears to be the case of prosecution that on 29/09/2014, officers of Kashimira Police Station posted at Versova Police Check Post at Mumbai-Ahmedabad were checking the vehicles. While at around 12.10 p.m. one Innova Car came to be intercepted on suspicion, which was found to be occupied by five persons and on obtaining its search two bags came to be recovered from its rear portion, which were found cont...
Manugraph India Limited, A Company Vs. Simarq Technologies Pvt. Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
G.S. Patel, J. (Oral) 1.By this judgment, I propose to dispose of the preliminary issue of jurisdiction under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ) raised by the Defendants in both suits. 2. In Suit No. 632 of 2014, the preliminary issue was framed on 31st March 2016. Shortly stated the Defendants case is that while the Plaintiffs have their registered office in Mumbai, they also have a branch office in Delhi, where the Defendants have their place of business and where, according to the Defendants, the cause of action has arisen. Therefore, according to Mr. Kirpekar for the Defendants in this Suit, this Court would not have jurisdiction. Only the courts in Delhi would. 3. The Defendants in Suit No. 516 of 2013 take a substantially similar plea. There, the Plaintiff has its registered office in Mumbai. The Defendants are based in Kolhapur and they allege that the Plaintiffs also have office in Kolhapur, and that the situs of the suit should, therefore, be Kolhapur. 4. ...
Phantom Films Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Central Board of Film Certific ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the record of the decision Annexure I-4 to the writ petition and after scrutinising the legality, validity and correctness thereof to quash and set aside the same. The next relief is that of issuance of a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing respondent No.1 to forthwith and/or in such time as this court deems fit and proper to issue in favour of the petitioners a certificate styled as "A" certificate in respect of the film "Udta Punjab", without the same being subjected to any of the cuts/conditions set out in the said decision. 3. This writ petition was placed before us on 8th June, 2016. It was adjourned to 9th Jun...
Arvind Shreenivas Bobde (Dead) through LRs. Vs. State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
Oral Judgment: B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The matter was heard some time in first week of June, 2016 and came to be adjourned to today at the request of Shri Kasat, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 -Municipal Corporation. Shri Kasat, learned Counsel submits that instructions in writing are still awaited. 2. Petitioner claims to be owner of a plot admeasuring 12500 sq. ft. in Ward No.82, House No.224 in Civil Lines area of Nagpur City. According to him it is surrounded on North by Palm Road; on West by Rabindranath Tagore Road, and the plot is located at the junction, popularly known as "Akashwani square". 3. Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel submits that in April, 2001 while implementing Integrated Road Development Scheme, un-authorisedly, without any notice or permission, area admeasuring about 100 sq. ft. to 150 sq. ft. at the corner of the property has been taken into possession by the respondent no.2 and has been built upon. He submits that no compensation whatsoever...
Ultratech Cement Limited and Another Vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
1. These Notices of Motion are taken out in trade mark infringement and passing off suits in respect of the Plaintiffs' registered trade marks bearing the word 'UltraTech' as a part thereof. The Plaintiffs complain of the use by the Defendant of the word 'Ultra' in its trade marks as being an infringement and also amounting to passing off. 2. Plaintiff No.1, originally incorporated with the name 'L and T Cement Limited' changed its name to 'UltraTech Cemco Limited' with effect from 19 November 2003 and to its present name 'UltraTech Cement Limited' with effect from 14 October 2004. In the year 2004, Plaintiff No.2 acquired a controlling stake in Plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.1 was the registered proprietor of several trade marks containing the word 'Ultra', such as 'UltraTech CEMENT The Engineer's Choice', 'UltraTech CONCRETE'. ' UltraTech READY MIX', 'UltraCem' and 'UltraCem. The Engineer's Choice', in Class 19 in respect of cement, building materials, etc. By a Deed of Assignment date...
Sekawat Vs. Rehane Budhan Tadavi and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
Per Court 1. On 07.06.2016, after the learned Advocate for the respondents was heard, this Court had passed the following order :- "1) None appears for the petitioner even at the second call. 2) Mr. Gholap, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the issue raised in the petition is as to whether a Muslim woman can claim maintenance u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. or u/s 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. He submits that this petition was filed upon being aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Court dated 30/12/2004 thereby rejecting the application for stay to the judgment of the Trial Court. This Court refused interim relief to the petitioner despite the challenge to the claim of maintenance u/s 125. 3) Mr. Gholap points out that in the light of no interim relief having been granted by this Court, the Criminal Revision Application No.314/2004 has been disposed of by order dated 17/04/2006, which is evidenced by the case statu...
Dilip Vs. Rekha
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. By this Family Court Appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur, dated 23.02.2010 allowing a petition filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and directing the appellant to join her company for cohabitation. 2. Few facts giving to the Family Court Appeal are stated thus, The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the Husband' for the sake of convenience) and the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the Wife') were married at Nagpur according to Hindu rites and custom on 20.08.2002. It was the second marriage for both, the husband and the wife, inasmuch as the marriage of the husband with his first wife was dissolved by a decree of divorce and the first husband of the wife had expired. Both, the husband and the wife, had two issues each from their first marriage at the time of the solemnization of their marriage on 20.08.2002. The wife had two daughters...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Through the Municipal Commiss ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4 November 2013 made by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) to the extent it directs the demolition of the compound wall within the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) area and the area affected by the mangroves, whilst granting liberty to replace the same with live/barbed wire fencing with vegetative cover (the impugned directions). 2. The present petition concerns the solid waste management project (said project) established and operated at Kanjur Marg, Mumbai (said site). The MoEF has granted environmental clearance (EC) dated 17 March 2009 to enable the petitioner-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to establish and operate the said project at the said site subject to the terms and conditions set out in the EC dated 17 March 2009. 3. VANASHAKTI, a Non Governmental Organization (NGO) and one Mangesh Sangle instituted Public Interest Litigation (PIL No.131/2012 and PIL No.1/2013, respectively) to ch...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »