Mumbai Court March 1992 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.
The Union of India (Uoi) Owning the Central Railway Through the Genera ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1992
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR425
B.U. Wahane, J.1. All these appeals are filed by the Union of India, through the General Manager, Central Railways, Bombay V.T., being aggrieved by the judgments and orders passed on 31st January, 1987, by the Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur. All the judgments being passed on one and the same day, in all seven separate applications under sections 14, 17 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, numbered as Special Civil Suit Nos. 290 to 296 of 1984. All the First Appeals preferred by the appellant, Union of India, are decided by common judgment, the same issue being involved for adjudication. The facts in each case being similar, the evidence was recorded in Special Civil Suit No. 290 of 1984 and the documents were also filed in that case. The evidence and documents were read in all the special civil suits. Following anticipated facts can be conveniently set out.2. The plaintiff M/s. R.N. Pattiwar, a registered partnership firm of Civil Construction contractors, having its registered office at...
Gajra Gears Ltd. Vs. Garha Gears Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR96
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. This is a motion in a passing off action. The plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendant from using, offering for sale and/or exposing for sale any goods bearing the words 'Garha' and/or 'Garha Gears' or colourable imitation thereof or any deceptively similar words without the licence and/or consent of the plaintiff and also from passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff by the use of the words 'Garha', 'Garha Gears' and/or any other similar words in its corporate name.2. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are public limited companies duly incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff is a manufacturer of Automobile, Diesel Engine, Tractor and Industrial Gears and other allied goods.3. Briefly stated, the plaintiff's case is as under :i) The plaintiff is the registered proprietor and owner of the Trade Mark 'Gajra' as well as the logo 'GG' used in respect of its manufactured goods and products including Rear A...
Badasha Jamal Mujawar and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1992
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR735
D.J. Moharir, J.1. The appellants as original accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1984 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 374 of 1984 as the original accused No. 2 were tried along with three other accused persons on various charges such as under sections 342, 354, 366, 366A and 376 and section 376 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 89 of 1983 decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara. The appellant No. 1 Badasha as the accused No.1 was convicted under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was also convicted under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The two substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The appellant No. 2 as the original accused No. 3 and the appellant No. 3 as th...
M/S. Vora Automotives Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gopalrao Namdeorao Pohre and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom151a
1. The applicant is an owner of a double-storeyed building located on a suit plot. The non-applicants 1 to 8 purchased an adjoining plot situated on the western side of the suit plot. To construct a commercial complex, they obtained sanction to the plan under Section 189 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1965'), from Municipal Council, Akola (non-applicant No. 9). According to the applicant, the sanction as accorded is contrary to the standardized bye-laws and development control rules. The open space of 10 feet, as required, has not been kept. The Municipal Council while granting sanction ignored the objections raised by the applicant. The Collector, therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 308 of the Act of 1965, by order dated 27-7-1991 directed the Municipal Council to consider the objections. However, the Municipal Council did not give any heed.2. The applicant, therefore, on 22-6-1991 filed a suit claiming a decree of injunc...
ishwardas Paulsrao Ingle Vs. General Manager, Maharashtra State Road T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1992
Reported in: 1992ACJ1013; AIR1992Bom396
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th January, 1981, passed by the Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldana, dismissing the petition of the appellant Ishwardas Ingle.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows.The respondent No. 1, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), owned a Bus bearing No. MHB-9734. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the officers. The respondent No. 4 opponent No. 4 Shaikh Matin s/o Sk Mohiddin is an employee of the Corporation and was working as a Driver at the time of the incident.On 21st May 1979, the Bus No. MHB 9734 was running from Buldana to Solapur and the respondent No. 4 Sk. Matin was driving that bus. Ashok Tambat, the witness No. 2 of the Corporation was acting as Conductor of the said Bus. The BUS started from Buldana towards Solapur, used to stop at Mera, Deulgaon-Raja and Bhivgaon being stops on the route. The appellant/petitioner and hi...
Mohanlal Jatia Vs. the Competent Authority Under the Smugglers and For ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR216; 1993CriLJ1477
Mrs. Manohar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition notices dated 24-3-1987 and 27-10-1987 issued under section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SAFEMA'). The relevant facts are as follows : The petitioner, Mohanlal Jatia, was detained under an order of detention dated 13-12-1985 under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA'). The petitioner was served with this order of detention of 4-4-1986. 2. The order of detention against the petitioner was challenged by his wife in Criminal Writ Petition No. 385 of 1986 filed in this Court. The petition, however, was dismissed by this Court by its order dated 2/3-5-1986. The petitioner's wife preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court by its order dated 19-12-1986. Thereafter, the petitione...
State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Shriram Babulal Chaurasiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR201
B.U. Wahane, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 31st March, 1982, delivered by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola, in Civil Suit No. 23 of 1979. The original plaintiff Shriram Chaurasia preferred First Appeal No. 139 of 1982 as the learned lower Court dismissed his claim for interest payable on the suit amount. The original defendant, State, preferred First Appeal No. 137 of 1982 to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals, are as follows:The original plaintiff, Shriram Chaurasia, avers that he is an agriculturist having 16 acres of agricultural land, takes produce of cotton, jawar, cotton, rice and other crops in his land. Besides this, he is a grain merchant and deals in jawar, wheat, rice and other commodities. According to him, he is a licensee to carry on the business of grain. On 23rd March, 1973, at the instance of the District Food Supply Office...
Selvel Publicity Consultant Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR322; (1992)94BOMLR562
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. The present group of petitions are filed by several advertising agencies seeking to impugn the hike in the licence fees for advertising hoardings in the city of Bombay. The respondent Municipal Corporation has raised the fees once in the year 1985 and again in the year 1989. By a Resolution No. AR(C)/255 dated 8th May, 1985 the fees were increased by about 50%. By a Resolution No. 27 dated 2nd May, 1989 they are further increased by about 60 to 70%. Both the increases are impugned in the present petitions. In short, it is the contention of the petitioners that the impugned increase is illegal and cannot be justified on the principle of quid pro quo. The impugned increase is not supported by additional services rendered.2. The aforesaid hike in the licence fees is justified by the Corporation by stating that it was necessitated due to high cost of living and increase in the expenditure of the Corporation. It is contended that on account of the above reason there was ...
Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR333; 1988LC127(Bombay)
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. In the disputes which arose between Larsen and Toubro Limited (hereinafter referred as 'petitioner') on the one hand and Food Corporation of India, Madras (hereinafter referred as 'respondent') on the other hand, the learned arbitrators have made and published their Award, being the Award dated 14th November, 1987, which has been filed in this Court and numbered as Award No. 143 of 1987 (hereafter referred as 'the said Award'). The Arbitration Petition No. 40 of 1988 has been filed by the petitioner for modification of the said Award by deleting therefrom the claim awarded in favour of the respondent and the Arbitration Petition No. 43 of 1988 has been filed by the respondent alongwith the Union of India also for modification of the said Award by deleting therefrom the claim awarded in favour of the petitioner. Since both the petitions are connected with each other, it is convenient to dispose off the same by this common order.2. At the very out set, it was dis...
ishwar Das Pauls Rao Ingle Vs. General Manager, Maharashtra State Rts ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1992
Reported in: II(1992)ACC346
B.U. Wahane, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 30th January, 1981, passed by the Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Buldana, dismissing the petition of the appellant Ishwardas Ingle.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:The respondent No. 1, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), owned a Bus bearing No. MHB-9734. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the officers. The respondent No. 4/opponent No. 4 Shaikh Matin s/o Sk. Mohiddin is an employee of the Corporation and was working as a Driver at the time of the incident.On 21st May, 1979, the Bus No. MHB 9734 was running from Buldana to Solapur and the respondent No. 4 Sk. Matin was driving that bus. Ashok Tambat, the witness No. 2 of the Corporation was acting as Conductor of the said Bus. The Bus started from Buldana towards Solapur, used to stop at Mera, Deulgaon Raja and Bhivgaon being stops on the route. The appellant/...