Mumbai Court February 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.
Mahesh Jayalal Dadhia and Another Vs. M/S. Thio Pharma and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR160; 1999(2)BomCR435; 1999(2)MhLj135
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. Leave under Rules 147 and 148 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (O.S.) Rules, 1980 is granted to the plaintiffs to take out the Notice of Motion in terms of the draft Notice of Motion handed in Notice of Motion made returnable forthwith. Defendants have been served and affidavits in reply and rejoinder have been filed. By consent of the parties, the Notice of Motion is being disposed of finally at this stage.2. By this suit, the plaintiffs are seeking an order restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling and/or trading their pharmaceutical products bearing the trade marks BROSMIN, ACTIZYME, ENERPRO, PRESTIGESIC and/or PRESTIFEN or any other mark identical and/or deceptively similarthereto as, according to the plaintiffs, the defendants are not entitled to use the same.3. Plaintiff No. 1, defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are members of the same family. They are partners in the family 'partnership firms being plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 1. Defendan...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Glaxo India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Bom240; 1999(2)ALLMR491; 1999(2)BomCR741; (1999)2BOMLR331; [1999]98CompCas378(Bom); 1999(2)MhLj883
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The appellants aggrieved by the order dated 24th July, 1988 passed by the Company Law Board, Western Region Bench, Mumbai, have preferred the present appeal. The main contention urged on behalf of the appellants is that the Company Law Board erred in holding that the disputes raised in the petition raise complicated questions which could not be decided by the Company Law Board in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 111 of the Companies Act. In addition, it is also submitted that no reasons have been given by the Board for the order passed and consequently the matter must be remanded to the Board for dispossing of the matter by giving reasons for its order. 2. The short facts which are necessary for disposal of the appeal may now be stated. It is the case of the appellants that the Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited (SHCIL.) had sent 10,750 equity shares of the respondent company for transfer in the name of the appellants on 15th March, 1991. The r...
Shohrab Vali Mohamed Vs. InamuddIn Son of Mohamed Kamil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Bom322; 1999(3)BomCR150; 2000(1)MhLj230
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. A startling and strange situation emerges from this writ petition. The petitioner is plaintiff in Short Cause Suit No. 422 of 1989. That suit was ended by passing a compromise decree on 13-3-1989. According to the terms of compromise, the suit Hotel known as Bismilla Hotel, was to be vacated by the respondent after 5 years. After the lapse of 5 years it is alleged that the respondent did not vacate the suit hotel. Not only that, he took out a Notice of Motion out of which the writ petition has arisen for setting aside the compromise decree. The contention of the respondent before the Court below was total denial of knowledge of the compromise decree. He pleaded that he was not aware of the suit, he did not receive the suit summons and he did not engage any lawyer. In this background, the lower Court has considered the contention.2. It is revealed from the Court's records, that on 7-2-1989, in the Short Cause Suit No. 422 of 1989 on the file of the Ci...
Ceat Ltd. Vs. S.D. Sawant and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR195]; (1999)IILLJ360Bom
N.J. Pandya, J.1. As these petitions give rise to common questions of law and facts, they can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment.2. The respondent-workman, who has been working with the petitioner- company, has started remaining absent on and from April 17, 1988 for different length of time. The details are set out in the Synopsis of dates and events. In the years 1988 and 1989, he remained absent for a number of days and, thereafter, in February 1993, he was served with a show cause notice for his absence on the ground of illness during the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. Finally, by letter dated March 26, 1993 a charge-sheet came to be issued wherein it was shown that the respondent-workman was absent on the ground of ill-health, particularly in the 3rd shift on 51 occasions out of 63.3. The workman was given personal, hearing and, thereafter, the finding of this enquiry was also communicated to the workman. However, looking to his length of service, a final warning lette...
Cce Vs. Eastwell Asbestos Ind. (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC87Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this case, the Superintendent of Central Excise while assessing RT-12 returns filed by the assessee, M/s. Eastwell Asbestos Ind. Pvt.Limited for the months of April, 1992 and May, 1992 pointed out short levy. The assessee were informed that they were not entitled to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 175/86 during the period from 1.4.1992 to 21.5.1992 since there was a unit registered with DGTD and such unit was not covered by exemption Notification 175/86. The Collector (Appeals) to whom the assessee filed an appeal, held that show cause notice for demanding differential duty was required in the instant case where goods have been cleared in accordance with an approved classification list and he, therefore, set aside the Assistant Collector's order on ground of violation of principles of natural justice for non-issue of show cause notice and he left it to the jurisdictional Superintendent/Assistant Collector to take such action as is permissible under the law. Hen...
Trishul Food Colours Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC186Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises from the order-in-original No. 120 of 1990 dt.27.2.1991, passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. By this order, he has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 98,420.91 under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Act on the ground that the assessee had intentionally misdeclared their product under TI 68 for the period Sept., 1985 to March, 1986, while the product "Food Colour Preparations" is classifiable under Tariff Item 14D of the erstwhile Tariff.2. In the impugned order, he has held that it is true that Food Colour Preparations are used in food preparations and are manufactured as per ISI Specification No. 5346 and their standards are prescribed. He has held that the said IS is not the authority for classification of the product for Central Excise purposes. He has proceeded to hold that the word "Food" implies to articles used by human beings to ...
Purbhaji S/O Baba and Others Vs. Tuljaram S/O Kasturchand Rathod and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR569; 2000(1)BomCR884
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J.1. This Civil Revision Application has been filed challenging the order of the III Additional District Judge, Nanded in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 207 of 1986 decided on 21-4-1989.2. The matter arises out of an order passed below an application for bringing the heirs of defendant No. 3 Sambha on record from the Special Civil Suit No. 63 of 1971. The application at Exhibit 39 and 48 have been filed by the plaintiff present petitioner. In Exhibit 39 it was informed that the suit was stayed pending reference to the Tenancy Court. During the pendency of the reference, original defendant No. 3 Sambha died and his legal heir Sumanbai was brought on record. It was also informed that he had no issue and the other heir namely Tanyabai the mother of deceased Sambha is already on record, and therefore, the name of Sumanbai be taken on record. By application Exhibit 48 the same request was repeated and therefore it was requested that the abatement be set aside and the legal heirs be...
Dhondiba Vithalrao Jagtap and Others Vs. Smt. Parubai Malhari More (Si ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR21; 1999(2)BomCR362; (1999)3BOMLR509; 1999(1)MhLj898
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition arises out of the suit filed being Civil Suit No. 245 of 1981, on the file of the 2nd Additional Small Causes Court, Pune where the plaintiffs who are the landlords of C.T.S. No. 52/1, Mangalwar Peth, Pune, sought eviction of the tenant Smt. Parubai Malhari More on four grounds: namely, defaulting payment of rent, bona fide need for their own occupation, alternative accommodation and non user. The trial Court decreed the suit on all these four grounds. The appellate Court, the findings entered by the trial Court on these issues were reversed and set aside the decree of eviction. It is in this circumstances, that the petitioners approach this Court by way of this writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original defendant Smt. Parubai More died and present respondents were impleaded and were served by this Court on 21-7-1997. 2. I have examined the judgments of the courts below and heard the arguments of the lear...
Century Rayon Vs. United Commercial Bank and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR107; 1999(2)BomCR650
ORDERD.G. Deshpande J. 1. Heard Advocates for the plaintiffs and defendants. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for recovering a sum of Rs. 1,11,273.50 inclusive of interest on the grounds that the defendant caused delay in making remittances of the amount of plaintiffs from Delhi Branch to Bombay Branch. The claim of the plaintiffs was denied by the defendants on two grounds, firstly on the ground of want of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and decide this suit and secondly, the plaintiffs cannot claim interest by way of damages.2. On the basis of pleadings the following issues were framed on 11-1-1999.ISSUESFINDINGS.1.Does plaintiffs prove that the defendants as their bankers were to carry out telegraphic transfer of remittances immediately and without causing any delay so that no loss of interest is caused to the plaintiffs?Yes.2.Does the plaintiffs prove that there was delay of 52 days in causing remittance of amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- and on that count the plaintiffs are ...
Dwarkadas Rameshwar Paldiwal Vs. Satyanarayan Makhanlal Gadodiya and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4425
ORDERD.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Bhide, learned Counsel for the applicant. Shri Deo, learned Counsel for non-applicant No. 1 and Shri Badar, A.P.P. for non-applicant No. 2 State.2. The present Criminal Revision Application is directed against the judgment and order dated 11-9-1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Buldana in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1990 whereby the order of conviction and sentence dated 9-3-1990 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldana in Regular Criminal Case No. 5 of 1987 came to be set aside and the non-applicant No. 1-accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code.3. In order to understand the controversy in question, it will be appropriate at this stage to consider few relevant facts of the prosecution case which has resulted in prosecution of non-applicant No. 1 for the offences charged. Shri Dwarkadas Rameshwar Paldiwal (complainant) is a partner of firm M/s. Kewalram Rameshwar which deals in petrol, diesel and k...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »