Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR896; 2009(111)BomLR479
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. Being aggrieved by the order, below Exh. 4, dated 18.6.2007 in Civil Suit No. 2/2007 (Garware Wall Ropes Limited.v. A.I. Chopra and Anr.), rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff, the present appeal was filed.3. This appeal was decided by this Court by judgment and order dated 19.12.2007. In Civil Appeal No. 4762/2008 decided on 1.8.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India set aside the said judgment and remitted these appellate proceedings for fresh disposal in accordance with law and also indicated the questions to be decided. Thereafter, respondent-original defendant No. 1 in the instant appeal filed Civil Application No. 6230/2008, which came to be allowed by this Court under order dated 28.8.2008. That application came to be allowed and the documents proposed to be filed with the said application were taken on record. Learned Counsel for both the parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR865
Kingaonkar V.R., J.1. By this appeal, appellant impugns judgment rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Aurangabad, in an appeal (RCA No. 279/1989) reversing money decree rendered by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Special Civil Suit No. 4/1978.2. The appellant, who is original plaintiff, and respondent are inhabitants of same town. The appellant's case before the trial Court was that, out of friendship with the respondent, he advanced amounts of Rs. 10,000/- each on 5th July 1975 and 12th July 1975 to him. The respondent executed separate demand promissory notes each at the time of advancement of the amounts, on both the occasions. Though he made repeated demands, yet the respondent did not pay the amounts. He, therefore, issued demand notice dated 9th July 1977, which was duly served upon the respondent on 11th July 1977. The demand notice drew blank. Neither it was replied nor was complied with. Consequently, he filed suit for recovery of the advanced amounts along ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(5)BomCR138; (2008)110BOMLR2167; LC2008(2)434; 2008(38)PTC435(Bom)
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The judgment was reserved on 12.2.2008. By a preceipe dated 29.3.2008 the Defendants sought to tender an additional affidavit to bring on record further documents and to raise a new defence. This application was heard by me on 3.6.2008. I have rejected the application for reasons furnished later in this judgment. 2. The Plaintiff has sought an injunction restraining the Defendants from making of, using, selling or distributing tamper proof locks/seals that fall within the scope of the claims of the Plaintiff's patent bearing No. 162675 and patent of addition No. 178879 so as to infringe the same and for delivery of for destruction any material infringing the said patents. The Plaintiff has also sought damages. Defendant No. 2 carries on business as the sole proprietor in the firm name and style of Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3 is the former employee of the Plaintiff who has joined Defendant No. 1/2 to assist him in carrying on his business. According to the Plain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR35; 2008(3)ARBLR204(Bom); 2008(4)BomCR594; (2008)110BOMLR852; 2008(4)MhLj238
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This First Appeal filed under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act) challenges the judgment and order dated 16/6/2007 delivered by learned District Judge, Nagpur in Misc. Civil Application No. 531 of 2003 whereby the learned District Judge has allowed application under Section 34 thereof filed by present Respondent. Appellant had stated that controversy herein is covered by the judgment dated 23/12/2005 in First Appeal No. 601/2005 and hence both parties had agreed to address the court finally at the stage of admission itself. On one date, Respondent stated that another matter vide F.A. No. 284/2007 between parties involving similar point was already closed for judgment and therefore it was thought fit to await such judgment. The said Appeal was decided on 20/12/2007. In the meanwhile record & proceedings from Court of District Judge were called for and thereafter, parties were heard on 11th, 12th and 13th Februar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR598; 2008LC(BOM)309
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3701/2007, Shri Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5100/2007, Shri Gordey, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5855/2007, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1 State, Shri Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India with Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition Nos. 3701/2007 and 5855/2007 and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 5100/2007, and Shri Arun Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3701/2007, states that petitioners do not want to press prayer Clauses (2) and (3) in the writ petition. In view of the said statement of learned Counsel Shri Kilor, Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the inter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : LC2009(1)197; (2008)3MLJ599
A.H. Joshi, J.1. The Appeal is listed for hearing with a clear understanding given to the parties that the Appeal will be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission hearing.2. Accordingly, parties have addressed their submissions based thereon.The Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the defendant No. 1 is not entitled to manufacture, sell, use etc. or offer for sale the product patented in favour of plaintiff titled as 'GSWR and Spiral Lock Systems bearing Patent Nos. 196240 and 201177' respectively and also for a perpetual injunction to the effect as described above.By way of consequential relief, the plaintiff has also prayed for damages in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000-00, with a further decree for rendition of accounts of profit and delivering to plaintiff all the products and systems used in violation of the patent.3. The plaintiff has complained that the cause of action for filing of the suit arose in or about December, 2005, when the plaintiff came to know t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2008Bom88
ORDERS.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This is the plaintiffs application for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.2. The questions that arise in this case fall into two categories. The first is whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent can be granted after the plaint is not only presented under Rule 1 of Order IV but is also admitted and entered in the register under Rule 2 of that Order of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The second is whether the plaintiff is entitled to leave under Clause 12 even assuming the first question is answered in the affirmative. I have answered the first question in the negative and the second in the affirmative.FACTS3(A) It is admitted that the plaint was presented on 29-9-2004 that it was admitted on 10-12-2004 without leave having been sought or obtained.(B)(i) The defendant took out Notice of Motion No. 745 of 2005 raising a preliminary issue of jurisdiction under Section 9(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and for a declaration that this C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009ACJ223; 2008(1)ALLMR745; 2008(2)BomCR76; 2008(1)MhLj724
R.C. Chavan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment whereby the learned single Judge, deciding First Appeal No. 624 of 2002, remanded the matter to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, for reconsidering the liability of insurance company to pay compensation for motor accident.2. The facts in the context of which the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal remanded the matter back are as under:On 11-4-1991 the appellant met with an accident by Truck No. NLM-8876, which was allegedly insured with the respondent. She suffered severe injuries to her thigh, legs etc. One of her thighs was crushed. She had to undergo several operations and even after treatment was left disabled. She, therefore, filed petition claiming compensation before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, against the owner of the truck and the present respondent insurer. She had stated in Clause 13 of paragraph 4 of her petition that the respondent had provided insurance cover to the truck under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(5)ALLMR195; 2007(5)BomCR694; (2007)109BOMLR1701; 2008(1)MhLj205
M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of respective parties.2. Letters patent appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel for respective parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.3. This letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 13-03-2007 in Writ Petition No. 755/2007, whereby the learned Single Judge of this High Court summarily dismissed the writ petition by confirming the Judgment of learned Member, Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai in Appeal No. 350/1994 as well as the Judgment of the Cooperative Court, Jalgaon in Dispute No. 134/1989 directing present appellants to surrender peaceful possession of the suit property to the respondent No. 1 and payment of past mesne profits to the extent of Rs. 18,000/-.4. The subject matter in dispute is plot No. 8-B (bungalow No. 48), situated in respondent No. 2 Society at Nandurbar. Present respondent No. 1 is the Chairman of respondent No. 2 Societ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(1)BomCR899; [2008(116)FLR457]; 2007(6)MhLj185
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Both these Petitions can be disposed of by a common order since the parties to both these Petitions have challenged the common order which is passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 43 of 2002.2. The Industrial Court partly allowed the Reference and directed the appropriate Government to take necessary action under Section 10(1), (2)(a) to (d) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'CLRA Act') within a reasonable period. The Tribunal held that the contract which was entered into between the Contractor and the Company was not sham and bogus but was a genuine contract. However, on the basis of other material on record, it directed the appropriate Government to take necessary action under the aforesaid provisions of the CLRA Act.3. Being aggrieved by the directions given by the Industrial Court to the appropriate Government to take action under the provisions of Section 10(l)(2)(a) to (d) of the CLRA Act, t...
Tag this Judgment!