Mumbai Court August 1961 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Nekumar K. Porwal Vs. Mohanlal Hargovindas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Bom246; (1962)64BOMLR616
ORDER1. This is a petition by way of an appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks (Mr. M. L. Kapoor) on 8th July, 1960 to the effect that the Register of Trade Marks be rectified by deleting the word 'Bull' from the caption 'Bull Dog' appearing in Drvanagri characters in the Registered Proprietor's mark, in an application for rectification filed by the respondents herein on 21st November. 1956 in respect of trade mark No. 131148 originally registered in the name of Kesharimal Pyarehand Porwal trading as Pyarchand Kesharimal Porwal, Kamptee, District Nagpur. but at present standing in the name of the petitioner. This application for rectification was based on the grounds, that the respondents were proprietors of registered trade marks Nos. 504 and 132940, that they were injured in their business and embarrassed by the registration of trade mark No. 131148, that the entry of Trade Mark No. 131148 in the Register had been made without sufficient cause, that th...
Farkhundali Nannhay Vs. Potdar V.B.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1961
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ51Bom
Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioner was employed by respondent 2, which is a co-operative society registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. The petitioner made four applications to the Payment of Wages authority for recovery of wages, retrenchment compensation and leave wages from respondent 2. It was contended by respondent 2 before the authority that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the application made by the petitioner and that it the only tribunal, which was competent to try and decide the matters in dispute, was the Registrar under S. 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act. This contention was accepted by the payment of Wages authority, which accordingly dismissed the our applications made by the petitioner. The petitioner then filed a special civil application before this Court, in which he contended that the view taken by the authority was erroneous. The Division Bench, before which the application came up for hearing, has referred the matter to us for ...
State Vs. Bhimsha Chanbasappa Kore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom188; (1962)64BOMLR24; ILR1962Bom129
Abhyankar, J.(1) This appeal is filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent Bhimsha Chanbasappa Kore by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1 Sholapur, in case No, 2669 of 1960 by his judgment dated 23-12-1960. The respondent was charged before the learned Magistrate with having committed a breach under section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act, in that he was found in possession of muzzle-loading gun in field S.No. 328/3 without a licence. The prosecution case was that the officer in charge of the police station at Valsang received information that a man in possession which is between the village Valasing and Chinaeneli. This was on 13-10-1960. On receipt of constable Pandurang More started to make inquiries. They went into the field and took with them two panchas, viz., Lalkhan and Bhonge, from a neighbouring land. They saw a man sitting below a mango tree and he had a gun in his hand resting on his knees. On seeing them, the man tried to get up but was asked no ...
Manohar Ramchandra Sarfare Vs. the Konkan Co-operative Housing Society ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom154; (1961)63BOMLR1001; ILR1962Bom382
Chainani, C.J.(1) Respondent No. 1 is the Konkan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Respondent No. 2 is an ordinary member of the Society. She was allotted block No. 71 in the buildings of the Society. On 25th September 1952, respondent No. 2 leased her tenement to the petitioner for a period of 12 months. At that time the petitioner was not required to be a member of the Society under the by-laws of the Society as they then existed. On 27-9-1953, the Society amended its by-laws, two of which were by-laws Nos. 7A and 67. Under by-law No. 67 as amended, a vacant tenement could be offered to a person, who was not a shareholder, if he became a nominal member of the Society. By-law No. 7A as amended provided that a person maybe admitted as a nominal member for the purpose of joint holding of shares along with an ordinary member or for the purpose of taking lease under by-law No. 67. These by-law were approved by the Registrar on 27th August, 1954. On 24th March 1954 respondent No. 2 made an...
Farkhundali Nannhay Vs. V.B. Potdar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom162; (1961)63BOMLR985; [1962(4)FLR22]; ILR1962Bom1
Chainani, C.J.(1) The petitioner was employed by the second respondent, which is a co-operative society registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. The petitioner made four applications to the Payment of Wages Authority for recovery of wages, retrenchment compensation and leave wags from the second respondent. It was contended by the second respondent before the Authority that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the applications made by the petitioner and that the only tribunal which was competent to try and decide the matters in dispute was the Registrar under S. 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act. This contention was accepted by the Payment of Wages Authority, which accordingly dismissed the four applications made by the petitioner. The petitioner the filed a special civil application before this Court, in which he contended that the view taken by the Authority was erroneous. The Division Bench, before which the application came up for hearing, has referre...
Himco (India) (Private) Ltd. Vs. Maruf B.M. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1961
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ687Bom
1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution whereby the petitioners has, inter alia, applied for a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondent 1 being the conciliation office from proceedings further with conciliation proceedings further with conciliation proceedings in the matter of seven different demands made in respect of employment and services of respondents 2 to 8 separately be Engineering and General Employees' Union. The facts leading to this petition are as follows : The respondent 2 was in the employment of the petitioner for nearly thirteen years. From 19 May to 2 June, 1960 he was under treatment of a panel doctor under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme. He had obtained two medical certificates from the doctor. The respondent's case is that he had reported for work with final certificate of fitness on 23 June, 1960. The respondent 2 was not allowed to resume work. In connexion with his right to be employed and reinstated in work, the Engineering and Genera...
Bipat Beni Vs. Sawarkar P.D.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1961
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ61Bom
Patel, J.1. This is an application by the petitioner under Art. 227 of the Constitution challenging the award of the industrial tribunal by which the tribunal dismissed the complaints of the petitioner and one other person holding that the complaints did not lie under S. 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The short facts which gave rise to this application need be stated. Respondent 2 is a small manufacturer and to doing business in Bombay. The petitioner was one of the servants of respondent 2. In or about May 1960, an industrial dispute between respondent 2 and his workmen was referred to the industrial tribunal under S. 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The incident in respect of which the complaint under review was made occurred on 22 July 1960. After a fruitless complaint before the Labour Officer, this petitioner and another made two applications to the industrial tribunal in the month of August 1960 under S. 33A of the industrial Disputes Act. He alleged that on 22 July ...
Bipat Beni Vs. P.D. Sawarkar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom167; (1961)63BOMLR998; [1962(4)FLR27]; ILR1962Bom124
Patel, J. (1) This is an application by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal by which the Tribunal dismissed the complaints of the petitioner and one other person holding that the complaints did not lie under section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.(2) The short facts which gave rise to this application need be stated. The respondent No. 2 is a small manufacturer and is doing business in Bombay. The petitioner was one of the servants of respondent No.2 In or about May 1960 an Industrial dispute between respondent No. 2 and his workmen was referred to the Industrial Tribunal under section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The incident in respect of which the complaint under review was made occurred on 27th July, 1960. After a fruitless complaint before the Labour Officer, this petitioner and another made two applications to the Industrial Tribunal in the month of August, 1960, under section 33-A of the Industrial D...
State Vs. Abdul Aziz
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom243; (1962)64BOMLR16; ILR1962Bom371
Naik, J.(1) This is an appeal by the State from an order of acquittal. The material facts lie within a narrow compass and may be briefly set out as follows: There is a Co-operative Society known as Malegaon Powerloom Said ., Malegaon. This Society was registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The respondent (original accused No. 1) was the Chairman and Mohamed Gofran, Mohammed Amir Gofran, Mohamed Ishak, Mohammed Siddik, Abdul Majid, Abdul Rehman and Haji Imamuddin were members of the Society at the material time. On 10th January 1955 accused No. 1, as the Chairman of the Association, made an application for the issue of a licence for importing silk yarn for consumption in the powerlooms of the members of the Association. On 2nd January 1956 a licence was issued to the said Association permitting imports upto the limit specified therein. Warden and Co., who have their office at Bombay represent certain manufacturers in foreign countries. On 13th May 1956 accused No. 1 placed an ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›