Court : Mumbai
MohitS. Shah, CJ. 1. This reference has been made to the Full Bench pursuant to the order dated 13 August 2012 of learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : B.R. Gavai, J.) for considering following question of law: Whether the Court can go into the question of the validity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark at an interlocutory stage when the defendant takes up the defence of invalidity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark in an infringement suit? 2. The learned Single Judge felt the need to make this reference in view of two decisions of the Division Benches of this Court, one holding that the Court can not go into the question of validity of registration of a trade mark when such defence is taken by the defendant at an interlocutory stage in a suit for infringement of registered trade mark (judgment dated 16 February 2005 in M/s. Maxheal Pharmaceuticles v/s. Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Appeal No.88 of 2005 in N.M.No.2663 of 2004 in suit No.2663 of 200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. Upon a difference of opinion between the Division Bench of this court, a reference under Clause 36 of Letters Patent has been made under order dated 11.5.2012 . The points of difference formulated by the referral Court are as follows: i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the decision of the Search committee to include the name of the respondent no.8 in the list of eligible candidates for the Office of Vice Chancellor of the University of Mumbai suffers from any non application of mind visavis condition no.3 when the Search Committee had recorded in the minutes of its meeting held on 12.6.2012 that the committee reviewed each and every application and prepared a list of 20 candidates (including respondent no.8) having all qualifications as mentioned in the statutory order dated 27.5.2009 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 12(3A)(d) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. ii) If the answer to the above question is in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 13th March, 2012, directed the office to place the papers before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. The Division Bench opined that the following question ought to be referred for consideration to a larger bench. Whether an appeal under the provisions of clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a civil suit in an application filed in that civil suit because of the provisions of section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is maintainable or not ? The learned Chief Justice constituted this Full Bench and referred the above question to it. 2. We have held that an appeal against an order in an application under section 8 is not maintainable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Our conclusion is based on principle and on authority. It is based on our interpretation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the framework in which it now sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was admitted by order dated 26.7.1991 and interim relief was granted to the petitioners in terms of prayer clause C-1 which reads as under:- Pending hearing and final disposal this writ Petition, the Judgment and order dated 26.6.1986 passed by learned President, Agricultural Land Tribunal Taluka Udgir in Case No.84/TNC/O/2 which is confirmed by Deputy Collector, Latur and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Aurangabad on 6.4.1987, 16.6.1990 respectively may be stayed. 2. The submissions of Shri Chincholkar, learned Advocate for the petitioners with regard to the Civil Proceedings as well as Revenue proceedings are as under:- A. DETAILS REGARDING REVENUE PROCEEDINGS : (a) The petitioners are the legal representatives of Maharudrappa Baslingappa Swami. (b) Maharudrappa Baslingappa Swami purchased land from Limbabai w/o Gurlingappa Swami by registered sale deed dated 15.10.1968. (c) The land purchased by Maharudrappa Baslingappa Swami falls in Survey No.116-A ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
R.M. Savant, J. 1. The issue which at most times is central to a challenge to an order passed confirming the motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch/Upa-Sarpanch has been referred to a larger bench of this Court by the Division Bench of this Court ((A.S.Oka and S.C. Gupte, JJ) vide its order dated 24th January 2014. The Division Bench has crystallized the said issue as under :- "Whether failure to formally move and second a motion of no confidence as required by Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rule, 1959 would render the motion of no confidence carried by the requisite majority under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, invalid ? The issue therefore revolves around whether Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules 1959 is directory or mandatory in the context of a motion of no confidence passed under Section 35(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short "the BVP Act"). The genesis of the reference lies in the dis-ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties and heard finally. 2. This Court has considered the submissions of the rival parties at length. The petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 19.11.2013, delivered by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon in Complaint (ULP) No.38 of 2009, filed by the respondent. 3. A short issue has been raised for the consideration of this Court. In two other Writ Petition Nos. 741 and 745 both of 2013, this Court has decided a similar challenge on 24.9.2014, 4. The respondent was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in 1977. She passed her lower division grade examination on 30.3.1980 and later on she became eligible for promotion as Upper Division Clerk (UDC). On promotion, she was working as UDC till 1997, when she was transferred from Jalgaon to Parbhani. In order to continue at Jalgaon, due to personal reasons, she opted for a reversion from the post of UDC to LDC. She joined the office of the petitioners at Jalgao...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on an Interim Application/Notice of Motion No.1548 of 2011 in the above suit. By the impugned order dated 20th January, 2014, the learned Single Judge has allowed this Notice of Motion and made it absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) thereof. Prayer clause (a) of the Notice of Motion reads as under:- "(a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, the Defendants, their servants and agents be restrained by temporary order and injunction of this Court from entering upon or remaining on the Suit Flat viz. Flat No.5, Second Floor, Goolestan, 37, (East) Wing, Cuffe Parade, Bombay 400 005, or any part thereof without the permission of the Plaintiff." 2. That was a Notice of Motion which was moved by the Respondent-original Plaintiff in the above suit. The Appellants before us are the original Defendants and they are restrained by the tem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal. 2. By this application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 17th January, 2014 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Mumbai in Special Case No. 90/2010, by which the applicant's application seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, instituted against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act'), came to be rejected. 3. The short question that arises for determination in the present petition is, whether the applicant can be termed as a 'public servant' within the meaning of Section 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC' Act), in the facts of the present case. 4. The applicant is stated to be a highly qualified and renowned Structural Engineer with expertise of three decades in the said field. He is also stated to have been professionally trained in space analysis and finite element an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. By an order dated 04-09-2007, this petition was admitted. No interim relief was granted to the petitioner. 2. The contention of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- a] The petitioner joined in 1975 as a driver. b] On 15-02-1981, the petitioner was manning the bus which collided with two cyclists riding one bicycle. c] One of the cyclist suffered serious injuries. d] The petitioner was initially convicted by the Criminal Court in Criminal Case No. 6675 of 1981, and was sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of which he was to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. e] In Criminal Appeal No. 93/1987 filed by the petitioner against his conviction dated 24-09-1987, he was acquitted and his conviction was set aside by order dated 14-12-1990. f] A charge sheet cum show cause notice was issued on 02-05-1981 to the petitioner by the respondent. g] After concluding the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By these petitions, the issues raised for the decision of this Court are as follows: 1. Whether this Court, in its writ and/or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should entertain a proceeding under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (For short, M.C.S. Act), challenging the recovery certificate u/s 101, directly by avoiding or not resorting to the statutory remedy u/s 154 and section 154 (2A) of The M.C.S.Act ? 2. Whether the remedy u/s 154 r/w section 154 (2A) of the M.C.S.Act could be termed to be a statutory remedy available and not merely an alternate remedy ? 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued vehemently and at length that in the peculiarity of the facts of his case and relying upon reported judgments, the petitioner's case is fit enough to be entertained directly by this Court under its writ or supervisory jurisdiction without direc...
Tag this Judgment!