Court : Mumbai
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. This Commercial Appeal is filed by the Appellant-Original Defendant against the Judgment and order dated 6 June 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge of the Commercial Division in Summons for Judgment whereby, refused an unconditional leave to defend and has granted a leave to defend, but conditional. Preliminary objection to the maintainability of Commercial Appeal. 2. To decide the preliminary objection of the maintainability of Commercial Appeal as filed, as raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents, though the parties have consented to hear the Appeal on merits, we have relisted the matter for hearing on the maintainability as it goes to the root of the matter in view of the confusion prevailing in the Office/Registry after the transfer of such pending summary suits because of the provisions of The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (for short, The Commercial Courts Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Criminal Writ Petition is heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Being aggrieved by the order below Exhibit 1 dated 21/01/2012, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur in Criminal Misc. Application no. 483 of 2004 and the judgment and order passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Latur dated 21/01/2015 in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2015, the original accused has preferred this Criminal Writ Petition. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present Criminal Writ Petition, are as follows: On the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent no.2 herein, crime no. 78 of 2000 came to be registered at Gategaon Police Station against the present petitioner and others for having committed offences punishable under section 147,148, 149, 323, 427 of the Indian Penal Code. After due investigation, the concerned Police Station has submitted the chargesheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur on 24/8/2004. On presentation of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. This is a suit for injunction and damages, in which the defendant has lodged a counter claim. 2. The plaintiff s case is as under: The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is inter-alia engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of brandy, whisky and other alcoholic beverages. The defendant is also incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of brandy and other alcoholic beverages. The plaintiff had applied to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, for registration of a design for their bottle. The same was granted on 11.08.2000, as design no. 183202 dated 11.08.2000, which is a Class-IV registration (the said design, for short). The said design was registered under the Designs Act, 1911 (the old Act, for short). The Designs Act, 2000 (the Act of 2000, for short) came into force on 11.05.2001. As per Section 48(2) of the Act of 2000, any registration certifica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
V.L. Achliya, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent, heard finally at the admission stage. 2. Petitioner herein has preferred this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of RCS NO. 265/2015 pending on the file of CJM, Nanded, on the grounds set out in detail in the petition. 3. Petitioner herein claims to be Doctor by profession and practices at Nanded. She possesses the educational qualification as MBBS and DGO. Petitioner started her practice at Nanded since August 2013. She has installed Sonography machine in her Hospital known as Suyog Hospital at Nanded. She claims that, the Sonography centre established by her is duly registered with the Health Department and the certificate of registration is valid for the period 11.11.2013 to 10.11.2018. 4. On 26.2.2015, the members of the Regional Vigilance Squad, Aurangabad, inspected the Ultrasonography Centre of the petitioner and r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION.................................................... 4 B. FACTS..................................................................... 6 C. MAINTAINABILITY...............................................12 D. LIMITATION..........................................................78 E. RELIEFS AND ORDER...........................................87 A. INTRODUCTION 1. The facts of the case are straightforward. The issues they raise, though narrow, are not. A very great deal of learning has been cited on both sides of the debate: some of the precedents are very old indeed. Counsel have argued that later decisions effectively upturn the older ones, even if they do not say so in so many words. There are two principal issues of law: first, limitation; and, second, whether the jurisdiction of a civil court is ousted in claim such as this because of the statutory provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 ( MPTA ) (Earlier the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Act 29 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. The above Application is filed by the Applicant -- Voltas Limited against the Respondent -- M.P. Entertainment and Developers Pvt. Ltd. for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act") to adjudicate the disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties relating to two Work Orders both dated 2nd August, 2007 (Exhibits-A and A-1 to the Application). 2. According to the Applicant, the facts leading to the filing of the present Application, in brief are as follows : 2.1. On 2nd August, 2007, two inter-connected Work Orders namely MP/ENT/033/07-08 and MP/ENT/033/1/07-08 were issued to the Applicant by the Respondent for "HVAC Low Side" and supply of 3 water-cooled 475 TR centrifugal chiller unit. Both the Work Orders (at pages 22 and 24 of the Application) contained the following Clause : "In case of any dispute during the execution of the work and if the matter is referred to Arbitration then i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In this Public Interest Litigation basically modification in user of a plot in Development Plan, its allotment to Respondent No. 9, illegal building construction upon it and failure of land owner Nagpur Improvement Trust (N.I.T.) or Planning Authority Nagpur Municipal Corporation to exercise rights or to discharge obligations, are the challenges which arise for consideration. The development plan was finalized under S. 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereafter MRTP Act) and NIT constituted under the Nagpur Improvement Trust,1936 (NIT Act hereafter) was the planning authority in respect of said plot till 27.02.2002. Thereafter, it is the NMC functioning under the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. The Development Control Rules of 1983 and 2000 (hereinafter DCR) also need to be looked into. 2. Subject matter is a plot having House No. 1155 CTS No. 1143 at Ward No. 74, ad measuring little over 1.14 Acre. The said plot is for commerc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By these two petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Act ), both the petitioners have impugned part of the arbitral award dated 6th December 2011. By consent of the parties, both the arbitration petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these arbitration petitions are under:- 2. The petitioner in Arbitration Petition No.341 of 2012 was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings whereas the petitioner in Arbitration Petition No.1017 of 2012 was the original claimant. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the aforesaid proceedings are described as they were described in the arbitral proceedings in the later part of this judgment as the claimant or the original respondent as the case may be. 3. The claimant is engaged in the business inter alia of operating private FM Radio Stations in various cities in pursuance of the lic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
G.S. Patel J. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction........................................................................ 4 II. Constitutional and Legislative Framework........................... 8 III. Facts in the Monsanto Petition ..........................................14 IV. Submissions and Findings in Monsanto............................... 20 V. Facts in the Subway Petition ............................................. 50 VI. Submissions and Findings in SubwaY...................................53 VII. Conclusion.........................................................................65 I. INTRODUCTION 1. These two Writ Petitions came to be tagged together presumably because they both raise issues of whether, in respect of the transactions that arise in each, the Petitioners are liable to a levy of service tax or sales tax. As it turns out, the facts are materially distinct; and as the following judgment shows, the two cases seem to us to be mirror images of each other: if one fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. There is an unfortunate trend in this Court, increasingly frequent. At the eleventh hour, a few days or, at most, a few weeks before a major film s scheduled theatrical release, some party rushes to this Court with a claim that his or her creative work has been plagiarized by the film s director and producers. The present case is but the latest example. 2. What perhaps sets this one apart from others that went before is that this is quite possibly the most egregiously ill-conceived claim that I have yet encountered. As the following narrative will show, it is impossible to discern from the plaint or any of the Affidavits that have been filed by the Plaintiff, what it is that he claims has been infringed. His is an ever shifting stand. He is constant only in his inconstancy, and while I agree that a foolish consistency is often the hobgoblin of little minds, the very least an application for an urgent interim injunction demands is certainty in the claim made. 3. No pla...
Tag this Judgment!