Mumbai Court October 1999 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.
Messrs Gulfam Exporters and Another Vs. Sayed Hamid and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)BomCR619; 2000(3)MhLj183
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners who are accused of having committed offences under section 63 of the Indian Copyright Act, sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and sections 420 and 483 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 465 I & R/4(S)92 of 1991 pending in the Court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate's 37th Court, Esplanade, Bombay.2. Initially, the respondent No. 1 had filed a private complaint in the Magistrate's Court on 21st August 1991 for the aforesaid offences against M/s. Gulfam Exporters and other unknown persons, a copy whereof is annexed as Exhibit 'A' to the petition. Pursuant to the said complaint the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had directed enquiry in the matter under section 202 of Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the said order the police enquiry was held and the police report dated 21-10-1991 was filed, a copy whereof is annexed as Exhibit 'E' to the petition. After the police report the complainant filed ...
Dr. Pradeep Mohanbay Vs. Minguel Carlos Dias
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR664; 2001BomCR(Cri)75; (2000)1BOMLR908
R.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner was held guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as 'the said Act') and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 18,000/-, in default simple imprisonment of one month by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Margao against the said order and the learned Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 12.3.1999 maintained the conviction of the petitioner, but reduced the fine to Rs. 13,500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one month. He further ordered that a sum of Rs. 9,000/-, out of the said fine shall be paid as compensation to the complainant/respondent No. 1. The petitioner challenges the said order of conviction and sentence in this revision.2. The only point which was argued before the Sessions Judge was that whether a complaint could be filed by Power of Attorney in view of Section 142 of the Act and whether the Power of Attorney could give evide...
Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. Employees of All India Union Vs. Pest C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ407Bom
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this Writ Petition, Petitioner seeks to challenge the Award of the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 136 of 1986.2. The facts giving rise to the petition, briefly, are as follows:3. On June 15, 1983, at 9.30 A.M., Bangera, a driver (since deceased) took two Supervisors and four Operators in the Company's vehicle to Sunflower Building at Cuffe Parade. He, thereafter, proceeded to Holiday Camp, Colaba, and returned back to Sunflower Building after dropping the Supervisors and two operators. On return, he parked the vehicle near Sunflower Building to pick up the supervisors and operators who were carrying out household work at the premises of the client of the Company in the said Building. While Bangera was waiting, the charge-sheeted employees approached the vehicle and started abusing (sic) the driver in filthy and abusive language. Thereafter, Bangera was abused (sic) and assaulted by four workmen, namely, B.P. Dubey, G.K. Devadiga, S. Devadiga and Manohar Karam...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›