Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(5)BomCR511
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The petitioner has presented this petition invoking the powers of this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and section 151 r/w Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The facts that are relevant and material for deciding this petition are as follows :-a) The petitioner claims that it is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacture of brake linings, clutch facings and other friction materials used in the automobile industry. The petitioner has been in this business for more than thirty years and is a leader in the development, manufacture and marketing of asbestos industrial products and friction materials. The petitioner has a Research and Development Center which is engaged in constantly updating the technology used by the petitioner and the same has been accorded recognition by the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR4363
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The present Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the additional District Judge, Solapur in Civil Appeal No. 438 of 1986 which confirms the decree passed by the trial Court in R.C.S. No. 23 of 1979.2. The plaintiff who expired during the pendency of the appeal is represented by his legal heirs, the respondents herein. He purchased 18 acres 30 gunthas from land bearing Survey No. 442/2 under a registered sale deed dated 21.1.1952. He purchased this land from the sons of one Tatya. According to the plaintiff, the sale deed was in respect of 18 acres 30 gunthas. At the time of consolidation of land bearing Survey No. 442/2 in block No. 1972, the total area shown was 12 acres 28 gunthas. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant took undue advantage of the wrong entry made at the time of consolidation of the lands in block No. 1792 and interfered with the plaintiff's possession of 18 acres 30 gunthas. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(2)BomCR117
Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. Upon passing the Xth Standard Secondary School Certificate Examination in 2001-02, the petitioner enrolled as a regular student in the XIth Standard at the Ramnarayan Ruia College. As a regular student, the petitioner failed in the XIth Standard Examination. The subjects chosen by the petitioner for the XIth standard included Electronics, a subject which is a part of the Vocational Stream. On 10th July, 2003, the petitioner filed an application for obtaining enrollment as a private candidate at the H.S.C. Examination to be held in March, 2004. Amongst the printed conditions that were accepted by the petitioner, was a specific conditions to the effect that he was prepared to select only those subjects which are allowed to be offered for the H.S.C. Examination by a private candidate. The petitioner, while filling the application form, accepted that he was aware that he was not eligible to offer technical and vocational subjects as a private candidate. The instructi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR327; 2008(5)BomCR693
Borde R.M., J.1. Appellants herein are raising challenge to the judgment and decree dated 29.8.1996, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamkhed in Regular Civil Suit No. 187/1990, whereby suit presented by plaintiffs-appellants herein claiming relief of specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement of sale dated 6.11.1989 has been dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been confirmed in an appeal presented at the instance of plaintiffs-appellants being R.C.A. No. 402/96, by the Extra Joint District Judge, Ahmednagar, vide judgment and order dated 15.9.2000.While admitting the appeal on 31.8.2001, this Court has framed following substantial questions of law.(i) Whether Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act prohibits absolutely, even an agreement of sale, without delivery of possession, to the prospective purchaser?(ii) Whether such an agreement of sale is rendered unlawful and illegal?(iii) Whether the Courts be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(1)ALLMR724; 1998(3)BomCR755
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for setting aside the decree passed by this Court on 5th May, 1986 in High Court Suit No. 1213 of 1986. In the alternative it is prayed that this Court be pleased to declare that the decree passed is invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs. Present Notice of Motion has been taken out with a prayer that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the execution of the Consent Decree passed in Suit No. 1213 of 1986 be stayed. In the alternative it is prayed that the defendants be restrained by an order and injunction from creating third party interest and /or disturbing possession of the plaintiff of the suit property viz. Survey No. 277/4 (part), City Survey No. B-953 and Survey No. 277/6 (part), City Survey No. B-964, Chappel Road, New Band Stand, at village Bandra, Tal. Andheri, Bombay-400 050.2. The plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property. By an agreement dated 22nd September, 1984, the plaintiffs agree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(1)ALLMR484; 2005(1)BomCR105
..... . gandhi for inspection of the documents relied upon by his clients (appellant) and they waited in his office till 6.10 ..... and solicitors appearing for respondent no. 1, by their letter dated 15th april, 2004 addressed to mr. dinesh t. gandhi, advocate appearing for the appellant before the trial court, had placed on record that pursuant to the time fixed by mr. gandhi, mr. jariwala along with ms. chanda sonpal, advocates and their client mr. popatlal shah attended the office of advocate mr .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(4)BomCR48; (2007)109BOMLR911; LC2007(2)201; 2007(35)PTC295(Bom)
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for infringement on the basis of their registered trade-mark, of which, according to the plaintiffs, word 'Nandus' is an essential feature. The said mark 'Nandus' is registered in respect of processed and frozen meat products and the said registration is valid and subsisting.2. The Plaintiffs contention is that the Defendants are using impugned mark 'Nandos' in respect of similar goods and/or similar services as that of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs in the suit pray for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from in any manner using in relation to any eatable goods or restaurant or hotelling services or processed and frozen chicken and meat products the impugned trade-mark 'Nandos' or any other deceptively similar trade-mark so as to infringe the Plaintiffs registered trade-mark 'Nandu'. A perpetual injunction on the same terms in relation to passing off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2000(84)FLR223]; (1999)IILLJ1370Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. Despite the provisions of the Constitution of India in Part IV which must inform the State in its governance, can the Bombay Municipal Corporation which is undisputedly 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, continue to employ a large number of workmen on contract basis and that too in blatant disregard of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970? This is the question posed for our consideration by this Writ Petition.2. This Petition is filed by a registered Trade Union which claims to represent about 2000 workmen doing the work of lifting, transporting and dumping of debris, garbage, silt, house gully materials, etc. at the various dumping grounds of the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC). The Respondent No. 1 is: a statutory Corporation established under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, hereinafter referred to as the 'BMC Act'. Respondent Nos. 2 to 33 are different Contractors who have been entr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009CriLJ73
..... accused while committing rape caused injuries on the lever and other parts of the deceased. considering these facts the apex court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. in amit gandhi's case : 2003crilj3873 (supra) the apex court commuted death sentence to life imprisonment on the ground that the accused was hardly 20 years' old and had no history of crime .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(1)MhLj734
..... ) pandurang ramchandra mandlik v. smt. shantabai ramchandra ghatge, : [1989]2scr1 . (4) laxmibai kisanrao tamhane v. smt. trivenibai, : air1973bom152 . (5) uttamchand v. vishwanath, : air1974bom28 . (6) laxmibai sambha jadhav v. bharatlal premchand gandhi, : air1976bom160 . (7) nilesh construction company v. mrs. gangubai, : air1982bom491 . (8) ramrao parashuram ghogle v. mukund govind kini, 1986 (1) bcr. 361 and (9) n.d. muthu swamy rao and ors .....
Tag this Judgment!