Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: mumbai Year: 2005 Page 15 of about 154 results (0.008 seconds)

Nov 30 2005 (HC)

Kishorekumar Mohanlal Kothari Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-30-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR675; 2006(3)BomCR842; 2006(2)MhLj591

..... . the apex court observed that protest against the award of the collector is implied notwithstanding acceptance of the compensation. therefore, the district judge and the high court, therefore, fell into patent error in denying the enhanced compensation to the appellants. that where the claimants receiving without protest the compensation awarded by the collector, it is held that they are not merely .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 2005 (HC)

Gebi Bapuji Banjari (Yerwal) Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-06-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR348; 2006(2)MhLj697

..... will manifest their intention. therefore, the protest against the award of the collector is implied notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation. the district judge and the high court, therefore, fell into patent error in denying the enhanced compensation to the appellants.the learned counsel, therefore, submitted that in view of this decision of the apex court, there should be no doubt about .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 2005 (HC)

Shamrao Deoba Kathole Vs. Hawada S/O Piraji Naoboudha and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-08-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR530; 2006(4)BomCR474; 2006(3)MhLj78

j.n. patel, j.1. this letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd march, 1995, passed by the learned single judge of this court in writ petition no. 1325 of 1990 wherein the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 2005 (HC)

Mr. A.R. Khan Construwell and Co. Vs. Youth Education and Welfare Soci ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-23-2005

Reported in : 2005(1)ALLMR511; 2006(1)BomCR170; (2005)107BOMLR231; 2006(2)MhLj595

h.l. gokhale, j.1. these three lpas are concerned with an immovable property of the first respondent bearing survey no. 643-b corresponding to cts no. 614-b or final plot no. 127 and ptr no. f/1892/at nasik admeasuring 40 gunthas which is a charitable trust registered under the bombay public trusts act 1950 (for brevity the act is referred to hereinafter or the bpt act). the first respondent trust has obtained the said property upon transfer from a previous trust anjuman khairul islam to whom it was transferred by one muslim education society, nashik which was granted the said property under a state government sanad dated 9th february, 1934. as per the terms of the sanad a structure consisting of 12 rooms has been constructed. the property was required to be used as a hostel for muslim boys. 2. the said muslim education society, nashik was dissolved under a resolution passed on 29th july, 1973 under which its properties came to be transferred to one anjuman c. khairul islam, bombay with the consent of the then charity commissioner and this trust later on transferred it to respondent no. 1 in july, 1989 as per the previous permission and consent of the then charity commissioner dated 24th november, 1988. 3. the objects of the first respondent trust are educational. they include maintaining schools, colleges, hostels, libraries, educational institutions for technical, pharmaceutical, medical, polytechnical and agricultural courses, to award scholarship to deserving students, to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 2005 (HC)

ishtiyaq Ali Farad Ali (Since Deceased by His Heirs and Legal Represen ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-20-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)ALLMR74; 2006(3)BomCR676; 2006(2)MhLj737

h.l. gokhale, j.1. by the present appeal, the appellants seek to challenge the judgment and order of a single judge dated 11th july, 1994 in first appeal no. 92 of 1979 which was filed by the original respondent (since deceased) and which appeal came to be allowed by the said judgment. that appeal arose out of the judgment and order rendered by a judge of city civil court, mumbai on 6th november, 1978, in short cause suit no. 426 of 1962, which was filed by the original respondent (since deceased). it was filed for seeking possession of the suit premises and came to be dismissed by the learned city civil judge.2. the short facts leading to this litigation are as follows:the premises concerned are room no. 46 on the first floor of the chawl known as gani attarwala chawl situated in ghelabhai street, mumbai-8. it was the case of the original respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as respondent) that he inducted the original appellant (hereinafter referred to as appellant) in the premises as his licensee by virtue of an agreement entered into between two of them on 20th april, 1959. after the expiry of that agreement, he called upon the appellant herein to vacate the premises by letter dated 11th january, 1962. the appellant did not oblige, therefore, the respondent herein filed aforesaid suit praying for a direction that the appellant be directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises. he also sought arrears of compensation charges and the mesne profits.3. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2005 (HC)

Ghanshyam S/O Ramcharan Amghe and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-02-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)ALLMR122; 2006(3)BomCR479; 2005(4)MhLj1142

..... c.s. no. 42, is bound to have such overriding effect on the earlier notification dt. 14-5-1963 under section 6 of the l.a. act, because of its patent inconsistency and consequently the latter becomes ineffective to the extent of such 41,396 sq.metres. it is this inconsistency and consequential partial invalidity that have driven the authorities acting .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2005 (HC)

Mohd. MinhajuddIn S/O Shaikh Habib Qureshi Through His Lrs. Noor-ul-ha ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-26-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)ALLMR225; 2006(2)BomCR172; 2006(1)MhLj163

..... record, which she done with her best effort.7. shri s. v. gangapurwala, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that the order passed by the wakf board aurangabad is patently erroneous, without jurisdiction and, therefore, non-est. he contended that by deed dated 12th october, 1965 a wakf was created from that date property vests with the wakf; the wakeef .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 2005 (HC)

Kiran Machine Tools Vs. D.D. Hinge and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-18-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR237; 2006(3)BomCR369; [2006(109)FLR253]; (2006)ILLJ410Bom; 2006(1)MhLj286

..... functus officio and it could not have entertained the application. the order passed by the labour court rejecting the application for restoration therefore cannot be termed as manifestly erroneous or patently illegal so as to call for interference under article 227 of the constitution.8. in the result, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. rule discharged. no costs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2005 (HC)

Ramdularibai Badrilal Chaurasiya and ors. Vs. Mohan Shrimal Nahar

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-26-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)ALLMR751; 2006(2)BomCR130; 2006(1)MhLj358

..... , learned advocate for petitioners submitted that the view taken by the learned adj relying on the judgment of this court in the case of vinayak nirgun's case (supra) is patently erroneous and, thus, the adj has committed an error appearing on the face of the record in allowing the appeal filed by the tenant. he pointed out that the judgment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 2005 (HC)

Mohanlal Nevadram Bhatia Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-25-2005

Reported in : 2006(3)ALLMR131; 2006(2)BomCR787; 2006(1)MhLj467

..... the notification at annexure-a, was withdrawn after 15-11-1988 i.e. the date on which the learned single judge decided the controversy which formed subject-matter of letters patent appeal. however, in the facts and circumstances, of the present case, as the appeal itself was decided by the resident deputy collector and the resident deputy collector was the appellate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //