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.
Ganesh Vs. Parwatabai and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Regular Civil Suit No.63 of 1986 filed for eviction and possession of the suit property from the tenant on the basis of the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was dismissed by the Trial Court on 23-7-1993. The plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.172 of 1993, which has been allowed by the learned Joint District Judge, Amravati, on 7-11-2001 by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and granting a decree for eviction and possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff along with the arrears of Rs.810/- and ordering an enquiry under Order XX, Rule 10(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure for determination of the future mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit till the delivery of the possession. Hence, the original defendant No.2 is before this Court in this second appeal. 2. The Trial Court recorded a finding that the tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 in respect of th...
Mehboob Khan Vs. Firoz Qureshi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This is a motion for injunction and other reliefs in an action for trade mark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff first obtained an order on 15th September 2014, after notice. That order has not been disturbed in Appeal. However, what has happened since the time of that order is most curious. The Defendants' subsequent conduct does not provide any answer to the Plaintiff's case either as first brought or as it now stands after an amendment. 2. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of a trade mark 'CARTER'S BLUE' in Class 43 (as of 16th June 2011) and Class (as of 18th May 2013). The Plaintiff's case is that he began running a restaurant under this mark as a sole proprietor from premises that he took from their owner, the original 1st Defendant. There is no dispute about this. These premises are at Carter Road, Bandra, near Amrut Building. This is now an area popular, especially among the city's youth, for its many restaurants, pubs, bars and night spots. ...
Veritas Exports, a proprietorship concern through its sole proprietor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
1. The suit is filed for a money decree against a bank by a constituent of the Bank. The decretal amount consists of interest, claimed as having accrued to the Plaintiff, on a certain sum retained by the Defendant bank by freezing the Plaintiff's account on instructions of the customs department of Government of India. The Plaintiff claims to have issued a mandate to the Defendant bank to keep the said sum in fixed deposit whilst the account was frozen. The Plaintiff's case is that despite such mandate, the amount was kept in a suspense account which did not earn any interest. The Plaintiff sues for the unearned interest, alleging breach of contract on the part of the Defendant bank. 2. The Plaintiff is a Government recognized export house carrying on the business of exports under licence granted by the Government of India. The Plaintiff held a current account with the Defendant bank in connection with its exports business. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), R. and I. Division, ...
Ismail Abdul Gani Vs. Azmatullah Baig Shifiullah Baig
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
1. Heard Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr. Pawar, learned Counsel for respondent at length. Rule. Mr. Pawar waives service for respondent. In view of the order dated 13.11.2013 and at the request and by consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the Competent Authority, Konkan Division, Mumbai (for short 'Competent Authority') as also the judgment and order dated 03.05.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai (for short 'Commissioner'). By order dated 28.10.2010, the Competent Authority rejected the application made by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short 'Act'). The said proceedings was instituted by the petitioner for recovery of possession of flat No.106, Karishma Apartment, 'A' Wing, behin...
The Chairman, Bhor Education Society and Another Vs. Dattatraya Bajira ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the order and judgment dated 15th January, 2016 passed by the School Tribunal, Pune allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 (in short 'MEPS Act') thereby setting aside the impugned termination order passed by the petitioner no.1 dated 24th June, 2014 and directing the petitioner nos.1 and 2 management to reinstate the respondent no.1 as Shikshan Sevak with all back-wages and with all consequential benefits. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The respondent no.1 is qualified as B.Sc., B.Ed. and belongs to open category. The petitioner no.1 is a public trust and society, registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and Societies Registration Act, 1860 respectively. In the month of June 200...
Bharat and Others Vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The matter was heard in open Court on 15.06.2016 and 16.06.2016 and after due deliberations, we rejected the Misc. Civil Application, mentioning that the reasons shall follow. These reasons have been recorded accordingly. 2. The review applicants -the original petitioners, addressed arguments orally and also wanted this Court to peruse written notes of arguments. We made it clear that if no written notes of arguments were filed by the other side, the matter would be decided in the light of oral arguments advanced. Only to the extent of points argued orally, we have perused the applicants' notes of arguments. 3. Writ Petition No.476 of 1983 was filed by the review applicants seeking quashing of Sakkardara Street Scheme floated by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Nagpur Improvement Trust. It is not in dispute that Notification under Section 39 of Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936, (equivalent to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894), was published on 02.02.1964 ...
Paldewar Prashant Agrotech Private Limited, Through it s Director Pras ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the interse communication between the Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mumbai addressed to the District Collector, Latur, on 4th February, 2016 [Exhibit-A Page-27] and also to the notice dated 10th February, 2016 issued by the District Collector, Latur calling upon the petitioner to remain present within 5 days from receipt of the notice to show cause notice as to why penal action shall not be taken against him [Exhibit-B Page28]. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the District Collector, Latur is an ultimate Authority to take decision on acceptance or rejection of the tender. It is submitted that the petitioner, pursuant to the tender notice published online for distribution of food grains in Latur District for the period 2013-2016, filed the tender on 20th August, 2014. The technical bids received from tenderers were opened. The Colle...
Hari Balhim Dhas and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
Mridula Bhatkar, J. 1. These Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.35 of 2006. In the said case, 18 accused were tried for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 326, 427, 504, 506 r/w. 149 of Indian Penal code, out of them, original accused No.2 Suresh Das was convicted for the offences punishable under section 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for three years. He has undergone the entire sentence and was released, hence he has withdrawn the Appeal. All other 17 accused were convicted for the offences punishable under sections 326 and 324 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Under section 326 of IPC, each of them were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, i/d. to suffer S.I. for 6 months. Under section 324 r/w. 149 of IPC, each...
M/s. Madhav Structural Engineers Limited Vs. The Vice Chairman And Man ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act ), the petitioner has prayed for an order of termination of mandate of the learned arbitrator, the respondent no.2 herein on the grounds mentioned in the arbitration petition and seeks an appointment of any other suitable person as a sole arbitrator to decide the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.1. The learned arbitrator is absent, though served. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The respondent no.1 had awarded a contract to the petitioner for implementation of Nagpur Butibori Wardha Talegaon Karanja Malegaon Mehkar Shindkhed Raja Jalna Aurangabad Vaijapur Sanwatsar Puntamba Phata Zagde Phata Sinnar Ghoti N H Standard Road; Section Loni Nagzari Kherda Karanja including Karanja Bye-pass road, Package 6 on the terms and conditions contained in the said contract dated 2nd March, 2001. On 1...
Balu Shivdas Dhas and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
Mridula Bhatkar, J. 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2007 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.173 of 2006 by which the appellants/accused were convicted for the offences punishable under section 326 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for three months; and also for the offences punishable under section 323 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code they were sentenced to suffer S.I. for one day, i.e., till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer further S.I. for 8 days. 2. This Appeal is triable by the Single Judge, however, while hearing group of four Appeals bearing Nos.415 of 2007, 434 of 2007, 611 of 2007 and 1174 of 2007, we are informed that this Appeal is filed against the order of conviction in a cross case which was lodged out of the same incident of assault. As the facts in all these Appea...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »