Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(2)ALLMR10; 2000(3)BomCR302
ordert.k. chandrashekhara das, j.1. this suit is filed for realisation of an amount of rs. 66,850/- from the defendant who admittedly executed the suit promissory note exh. 'o' dated 10th december, 1991 for the amount of rs. 50,000/- the defendant has filed a reply contesting the plaint claim. apart from that he disputes the suit claim on the ground that he has already paid all theamount to the plaintiff, defendant has raised a contention that the plaintiff failed to comply with the time frame prescribed under the rule 227 of the high court of judicature at bombay, original side rules which reads as under:'if the plaintiff does not apply for a decree within six months after the filling of the plaint, the suit shall be set down for dismissal on the board of the judge in chambers. the prothonotary and senior master shall notify on his notice board the date on which the suit is to be so set down and he shall do so at least eight days before such date. if the plaintiff is appearing in person, the prothonotary and senior master shall give notice of the date to the plaintiff by sending a letter to him by post under certificate of posting.'2. in view of the above clause, the defendant submit that he is entitled to unconditional leave. in order to address this question, it is necessary to refer to certain dates relevant for consideration. the present suit was filed on 12th december, 1994. it appears that the plaint was under certain objections and court records shows that the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(3)ALLMR164; 1999(4)BomCR278
ordera.p. shah, j.1. leave under rules 147 and 148 of the bombay high court (original side) rules, 1980 is granted to the plaintiffs to take out a notice of motion in terms of the draft notice of motion handed in.leave to amend the plaint and the notice of motion in terms of the draft amendment.mr. chitnis for the defendants waives service.by consent, notice of motion is taken up for hearing.2. this is an action in passing off. the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark/domain name 'radiff' or any other similar name so as to pass off or enable others to pass off their business or goods or services as for the business or goods or services of the plaintiffs. the plaintiffs are also seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark 'radiff' or any other word on mark either as part of their trade name or trading style which is deceptively similar to plaintiffs' trading style and/or 'rediff' or using the get up, concept and lay out, etc., so as to pass off the defendants' product and/or services as those of the plaintiffs or in some way connected with the plaintiffs. the plaintiffs are further seeking an injunction against the defendants from using the literary or artistic work found on the plaintiffs' web page or infringing the defendants copyright thereon without the plaintiffs' licence. along with the suit, the plaintiffs have taken out this notice of motion for interlocutory .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(4)BomCR84; 2000(4)MhLj321
orderb.n. srikrishna, j. 1. these two appeals arise out of the judgment and order of the learned single judge dated march 1/2, 1996 made commonly in the two suits i.e. testamentary suit no. 36/ 1984 and testamentary suit no. 21/1992. 2. after having heard the counsel appearing on both sides quite extensively, we are satisfied that the judgment and order of the learned single judge appealed against would have to be set aside and the two suits sent back and the parties be given opportunity of leading further evidence for the reasons which we shall indicate hereinafter. facts: 3. mrs. chandrabhaga chandrarao sawant filed testamentary petition no. 449 of 1984 seeking letters of administration in respect of the will of deceased chandrarao suryaji sawant dated 11th february, 1966. upon the caveators objecting to it, this testamentary petition no. 449/1984 was converted into testamentary suit no. 36/1984. simultaneously, gajanan chandrarao sawant filed a testamentary petition propounding the will of the deceased chandrarao suryaji sawant. upon this testamentary petition being objected to, it was converted into the testamentary suit no. 21/1992. as both these suits raised common issues, the learned single judge framed the following issues which would determine both the suits. the commonly framed issues are as follows :--- a. whether the writing dated 5-8-1974 is genuine and duly executed last will and testament of the deceased b. whether the deceased was of sound condition of mind at .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1999Bom20; 1998(4)BomCR828; 1998(3)MhLj703
orders. radhakrishnan, j. 1. heard the learned counsel for the parlies; mr. rahul narichania for the plaintiffs and ms. f.s. sethna for the defendants. the defendant no. 1 vessel was arrested by an arrest warrant issued by this court on 27th september, 1995. the learned counsel for the plaintiff prays that time to serve defendant nos. 2 and 3 be extended. hence date of service of writ of summons on defendants 2 and 3 is extended to 25th november, 1998. 2. incidentally in this suit, an interesting issue cropped up, that is to say whether in case a defendant vessel is arrested by an arrest warrant issued under the admiraltyjurisdiction, thereafter whether it is necessary in addition to the aforesaid arrest warrant, serving of writ of summons again on the defendant vessel. the learned counsel for the plaintiff in this behalf brought to my notice rules 945 and 946 of the rules and forms of the high court of judicature at bombay, original side, in its several jurisdictions, 1980. the said rules 945 and 946 read as under :-- 'rule 945. in a suit in rem no service of writ of summons or warrant of arrest shall be required, when the advocate for the defendant agrees to accept service and to give security or to pay money into court.' rule 946. (1) in a suit in rem the writ of summons or the warrant of arrest shall be served on the property against which the suit is brought. (2) where the property is ship or cargo on board, service shall be effected by affixing the original writ of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(4)BomCR399
karnik d.g., j.1. heard counsel for the plaintiff. none present for the defendants.2. this chamber summons is placed before me is a suit, in view of rule 156 of the bombay high court (original side) rules.3. the defendant nos. 1 to 3 have died during the pendency of the suit. plaintiff has taken out this chamber summons for exempting the plaintiff of necessity of substituting the legal representatives of the defendant nos. 1 to 3.4. sub-rule (4) of rule 4 of order 22 of the code of civil procedure under which the exemption is sought reads as under:(4) the court whenever it thinks fit, may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant who has failed to file a written statement or who, having filed it, has failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing; and judgment may, in such case, be pronounced against the said defendant notwithstanding the death of such defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it has been pronounced before death took place.sub-rule (4) of rule 4 of order 22 of the code of civil procedure permits a court to exempt a plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of a deceased defendant in two cases viz. (i) where the defendant has failed to file a written statement or (ii) having filed the written statement has failed to appear and contest the suit.5. normally, the rule in any legal proceeding is that the court would not pass any orders without hearing .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(3)ARBLR238(Bom); 2006(1)MhLj836
r.m. lodha, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6th january, 1997 passed by the learned single judge dismissing the arbitration petition under sections 30 and 33 of the arbitration act, 1940 on the ground of it being time barred under article 119 of the limitation act, 1963.2. for the sake of brevity, we shall refer to the appellants as 'ongc' and the respondents as 'nippon'.3. brief facts which are necessary for the consideration of the controversy in appeal are thus :(a) ongc and nippon entered into the agreement on 28th december, 1985 in respect of south bassein central facility complex about 80 kms west of bombay in the arabian sea.(b) the disputes and differences arose between them under the said contract which were referred to the arbitration of justice d.v. patel (retd.) and dr. s.r. jain.(c) the arbitrators passed the award on 2nd march, 1996.(d) on that very day i.e. 2nd march, 1996 the arbitrators forwarded the award dated 2nd march, 1996 to m/s little and co., the advocates for ongc.(e) then on 4th march, 1996, the arbitrators sent the letter to m/s little and co. intimating them that they have signed and declared the award on 2nd march, 1996 and the original award has been sent to them through courier on 2nd march, 1996 itself. along with the said letter, the arbitrators sent their affidavits for filing the award and the affidavit in the high court and for necessary action.(f) on 23rd march, 1996, m/s little and co., advocates for ongc filed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR598; LC2009(1)205; 2009(40)PTC627(Bom)
d.g. karnik, j.1. leave under rule 147 of the high court (original side) rules 1980 is granted to the plaintiff. respondents waive service.2. heard learned counsel for the parties.3. by this motion, the plaintiff seeks injunction restraining the defendants from infringing his copyright in the story, screen play and dialogs in the hindi remake of the tamil film 'ghajini'.4. the defendant no. 1 wrote the story, screen play and dialogs for the tamil film 'ghajini'. according to the plaintiff, by an agreement dated 29th december 2004, the defendant no. 1 by receiving a consideration of rs. 11 lakhs assigned to him the copyright in the story, screenplay and dialogs of the tamil film 'ghajini' with a right to remake the film in hindi language. in the month of november 2008 the plaintiff learnt that the defendant no. 3 was making a remake of that film in hindi in violation of the copy right of the plaintiff. he has, therefore, sought an injunction restraining the defendants from releasing the hindi remake of the film 'ghajini' and/or infringing his copyright.5. the defendant nos. 1 and 3 have filed an affidavit denying the averments in the plaint. in the plaint, he has stated that though he had written the story of the original tamil film 'ghajini' he had done it for m/s.sri sarvanna who was the owner of the copyright in the story, screenplay and the dialogs. he further denied having executed the alleged agreement dated 29th december 2004 as also having received rs. 11 lakhs in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2009Bom117; 2009(1)BomCR416
karnik d.g., j.1. chamber summons no. 52 of 2007 is taken out by the plaintiff (in the testamentary suit) for dismissal of the caveat dated 12th march, 2007 filed by the defendant opposing the grant of probate to the alleged will dated 4th april, 2005 of mr. sudesh kapur. chamber summons no. 80 of 2007 is taken out by the defendant (in the testamentary suit) for taking on record the additional affidavit in support of his caveat or in the alternative to allow the amendment to the affidavit in support of his caveat dated 12th march, 2007.2. the relevant facts briefly stated are that on 5th july, 2006 mr. sudesh kapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') died leaving behind him the plaintiff as a widow and the defendant as his son. according to the plaintiff, the deceased has left behind him his last will and testament dated 4th april, 2005.3. on 9th october, 2006, the defendant filed a suit bearing suit no. 3020 of 2006 in this court for administration of the estate of the deceased alleging that the deceased had died intestate. on 7th december, 2006, the plaintiff filed a petition bearing testamentary petition no. 998 of 2006, for grant of probate to the alleged last will of the deceased dated 4th april, 2005. on service of the notice of the testamentary petition, on 12th march, 2007 the defendant filed a caveat opposing the grant of probate and on the next day, i.e. on 13th march, 2007, filed an affidavit setting out the grounds of opposition for the grant of probate. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1 the present summons for judgment is taken out by the plaintiffs in a summary suit for recovery of unpaid freight and other incidental charges by the defendants in a sum of ` 8,33,656/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1 january 2006 upto 25 september 2008. 2 the plaintiffs carry on a business as consolidators and freight forwarders. defendant no.1 is the sole proprietary concern and doing a business as exporters of garments. defendant no.2 is also carrying on business of the same nature. defendant no.3 is an internationally approved freight forwarding agents for carriage of goods by air and stated to be the authorised agent of the carriers of the consignments in question. defendants 1 and 2 were the owner of the consignments consisting of cotton woven garments which were entrusted to the plaintiffs for effecting shipment to new york. no relief is claimed against defendant no.3. 3 the plaintiffs effected the carriage by air of the four consignments to new york. the airway bills (the bills) reflect, apart from number and date, defendant no.1- m/s. quantum international as the consignees. the bills were signed by the plaintiffs for and on behalf of defendant no.3 as agents. as per the plaintiffs, it was mutually agreed that the bills would be marked as "freight pre-paid"; and defendants 1 and 2 would be allowed thirty days credit to pay the plaintiffs dues. the plaintiffs, therefore, based upon an oral assurance, as alleged, delivered the goods and expected the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1970Bom109; (1969)71BOMLR305; 1969MhLJ487
1. this is a suit filed by one of the executants of a document under section 77 of the indian registration act, 1908, for a decree directing the defendants, who are the appropriate registering authorities, to register the document in question within 30 days from the date of the passing of the decree in this suit.2. the short facts necessary for the purpose of this suit are that the plaintiff is the administrator of the estate of one dhundiraj balwant divekar who died intestate in bombay on the 10th of october 1962, leaving him surviving as his only heirs according to the hindu succession act, 1956, his widow the plaintiff herself and two sons, one named suresh, and the other a minor named bakul. the plaintiff obtained a grant of letters of administration to the estate of the deceased dhundiraj from this court on 21st may 1964, and having completed the administration of the said estate, paid to the said suresh a sum of rs. 52,106, and paid to herself in her personal capacity as the heir of the deceased dhundiraj, and to herself as the mother and natural guardian of her minor son bakul, a sum of rs. 1,04,212/- made up of rs. 29,212 in cash and rs. 75,000 being the value of a flat on pedder road in bombay. by agreement between the parties, the share of the deceased in the business of united sound services was continued to be held in common between his heirs, the said suresh, the plaintiff and the said minor bakul, and was not included in the distribution of the estate mentioned .....
Tag this Judgment!