Mumbai Court July 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.
Raymond Limited Vs. Raymond Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
1. By this Notice of Motion, the Plaintiffs seek injunctions restraining the Defendants, their Directors, proprietors, servants, subordinates, representatives, stockists, dealers and agents and other persons under them, from infringing the Plaintiffs' registered mark 'Raymond' ( the Mark ) in any manner including by using the Mark or any similar mark in the domain name www.raymondpharma.com or any other domain name incorporating the Mark or any other similar mark as a part of the Defendants' website, E-mail address or otherwise. The Plaintiffs also seek to restrain the Defendants from passing off the Defendants' goods or website as that of the Plaintiffs. The plaint similar permanent injunctions, damages in a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs, in the alternative accounts in respect of the profits earned by the Defendants by using the Mark and for a decree for amounts found to be due on accounts being taken. 2. The Plaintiffs were incorporated in 1913 as Raymond Woolen Mills Limited, are presently kno...
Vijaya Ukarda Athor (Athawale) Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Secre ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
Oral Judgment:(Kum. I.K. Jain, J.) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 18-09-2012 passed by respondent no.2 Municipal Corporation appointing respondent no.3 and declaring petitioner ineligible for the compassionate appointment as she got married. 2. Briefly stated the facts are; Late Ukarda Athor (Athawale) was working as a Clerk in Municipal Corporation, Amravati. He had two wives namely Shantabai and Kuntabai. Ukarda died on 18-06-1997. Petitioner Vijaya is daughter of Ukarda through his first wife Shantabai. Respondent no.3 is son of Ukarda through second wife Kuntabai. 3. After the death of Ukarda, Shantabai submitted an application on 29-12-1997 to respondent no.2 stating therein that her daughter is 17 years old and on her attaining majority she may be appointed on compassionate ground in place of her father. On 19-03-1998, after petitioner attained majority she submitted an application in the prescribed form to respondent no.2 for her appointment on compassionat...
Dinesh Vaghela Vs. Goa State Information Commission and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.06.2009 passed by the Goa State Information Commission (State Commission, for short), by which a penalty of Rs.2,000/- is imposed on respondent no. 2 (who was the opponent no. 1 before the State Commission). The petitioner is basically aggrieved by the inadequate amount of penalty imposed on respondent no. 2 and the contention is that under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the Act, for short), the State Commission had no authority to reduce the penalty, by taking a lenient view. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner had sought certain information about leave records of one Kashinath Shetye, which application was rejected by the Public Information Officer (PIO) and also the First Appellate Authority. On 31.12.2008, the State Commission directed that the information be furnished within ten days. It appears that the third party, Mr. Kashinath Shetye challenged the order of the State ...
DLF Power Limited Vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
1. By this petition filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act ), the petitioner has impugned the order dated 2nd February, 2011 passed by the arbitral tribunal accepting the plea of the respondent under section 16 of the Arbitration Act and dismissing the arbitral proceedings on the ground of jurisdiction. It is made clear in the impugned order that the parties were left to pursue such legal remedies as were available to them for resolution of their dispute arising out of the contracts entered into between the parties. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. On 16th April, 1997 and 30th April, 1997, DLF Industries Limited (DIL) signed two contracts with the respondent i.e. contract No.E-10010 for engineering and supply of equipments for 3 x 26.5 MW power project and contract No.E-11011 for civil works for carrying out erection and commissioning of the power...
M/s. Nomula Brothers Vs. M/s. Ruchi Worldwide Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the award dated 24th August, 2012 passed by the learned arbitrator of Cotton Association of India. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of this arbitration petition in this court. Since the respondent has raised an objection about the maintainability of this petition in this court, I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties on the issue of maintainability of this petition in this court only. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent at the first instance invited my attention to the purchase order annexed to the notice of motion which was issued by the respondent to the petitioner. She submits that in the said purchase order it was clearly mentioned that the head office of the respondent is situated at Indore (M.P.). My attention is also invited to the annextures to the said purchase order which provides that the contr...
Harish and Others Vs. Kiranlata
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that while issuing process, by the order passed on 12th January, 2015, the learned 5th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola has not followed the mandate of Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which has been newly amended by the Amendment Act, 2005 and, therefore, the order is vitiated. He also submits that when it is an admitted fact that all the applicants, who are the proposed accused persons are not the residents of the place within the territorial jurisdiction of Akola Court, this very fact required the learned Magistrate, as per Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code, to postpone the issuance of process and make an enquiry either by himself or investigation through a Police Officer in order to find out as to whether or not there is sufficient material for proceeding further in the matter. Since this has not been done by the learned Magistrate, the impugned ...
M/s. Ravindranath GE Medicate Associate Private Limited Vs. M/s. Clean ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
1. By this appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act ), the appellant has impugned the order dated 13th June 2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thane allowing the application filed by the respondent herein raising a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the application filed by the appellant herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and holding that the said arbitration application was not maintainable. Learned Principal District Judge rejected the arbitration application filed by the appellant praying for setting aside the impugned award dated 17th March 2015. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under:- 2. The appellant had issued a work order dated 9th January 2008 to the respondent for Epoxy flooring, coving, hygiene PU wall coating and other specialty coating at its hospital in Chennai. The total value of the work order was Rs.1,09,55,852/-. The di...
Dr. Dinkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition is filed with the following prayers: B) By issue of writ of mandamus or any other writ of like nature, the respondent No.2 Corporation be directed to release the pensionary benefits with interest for causing delay in making payment of the same within period of two weeks. C) It be held and declared that, the action of Corporation seeking suspension / rescission of the resolutions passed by the standing committee and general body by invoking powers contemplated U/sec. 451 of the Bombay Provincial and Municipal Corporation Act is without authority of law and void abinitio. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Medical Officer of Health in the respondent Corporation on 21.04.1983. The petitioner, since then, discharged his duties honestly and sincerely to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. The petitioner wa...
HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Rohan Dyes and Intermediates Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
1. This Company Petition has been filed by the Petitioner HDFC Bank Ltd. seeking to winding up the Respondent Company Rohan Dyes and Intermediates Ltd. on the ground that the Respondent Company is unable to pay its debts. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent Company is indebted to the Petitioner in the sum of approximately Rs.8.74 Crores which comprises of a principal sum of Rs.8.19 Crores and simple interest of Rs.54.96 Lacs. The claim in the present Petition arises out of certain derivative transactions that were entered into between the Petitioner Bank and the Respondent Company, the details of which are narrated hereinafter. I must mention here at the outset that it is not in dispute that the Petitioner Bank is an authorised dealer in foreign exchange and is in fact listed as an authorised dealer in Category - I as per the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines. 2. Before dealing with the facts of this case, it would be necessary to mention here that this Company Petition...
Diya Dattaguru Sinari Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
Oral Order: 1. This is an application for bail. The applicant, who is a co-accused is facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 365, 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC. 2. The prosecution case as elicited from the complaint dated 20.12.2015, lodged by one Bhagirath Kharol is that, the accused persons in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, abducted the complainant's brother-in-law by name Ratan Kharol on 17.12.2015 and caused his death and destroyed the evidence with an intention to screen themselves from punishment, by chopping the dead body in parts and disposing of the same at various places in the State. 3. It appears that the deceased Ratan Kharol was running a sugarcane juice gada. One Biju Gopi had asked the deceased to look after his shop, as Biju was required to go out for some urgent work. During the absence of Biju, a male person entered the shop and took away a pulley and the safety shoes. When the deceased accosted the said person (who according to the pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »