Mumbai Court June 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.
M/S. Arte Indiana Vs. M/S. P. Mittulaul Lalah and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Bom369; 1999(4)BomCR239
ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, C.J.1. Admit. Counsel for respondent No. 1 waives service. In this appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant gives up respondent No. 2 and states that in fact, the suit itself will be withdrawn againstrespondent No. 2 and his client would take such appropriate separate proceedings against the said respondent as may be permissible in law. Considering the nature of the controversy, learned Counsel for the parties have made their submissions and submit that the appeal be finally disposed of at this stage itself.2. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was filled by the appellants complaining of violation of copyright under Copyright Act, 1957, as also infringement of trademark and passing off. The appellant has its office at Mumbai and it carries on business within the jurisdiction of this Court. Respondent is carrying on business at Chennai. It is not in dispute that in regard to violation of copyright which the appellant/plaintiff has alleged in the plaint,...
Damodar Appu Mudliar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR51; 2000BomCR(Cri)51; (2000)1BOMLR1; 1999(3)MhLj499
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the Judgment and Order dated 23-1-1992 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 513 of 1989 convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. 2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :- The deceased Ms. Vallarmadi was the daughter of Meera Mudliyar, P.W. 8 and the wife of the appellant, with whom she was married about four years prior to the incident. After marriage, she lived at various places with the appellant and at the time of the incident was living with him in Balappa Tinappa Sutar Chawl, New Balaji Nagar, Ambernath, Khuntavali, Taluka Ulhasnagar, District Thane. Frequent quarrels used to take place between her and the appellant resulting in her repeatedly corning over and staying with her mother. On 19-5-1989, at about 10.30 p.m. a quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased which culminated in the forme...
Smt. Piyusha Rajesh Mehta Vs. Shri Rajesh Hiralal Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR432; 2000(1)BomCR314
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This petition is not on board for final hearing. However, with the consent of the parties it is taken up for final hearing. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the Petitioner Piyusha has filed a petition before the Family Court for maintenance and permanent injunction against the respondent Rajesh. It appears that in that petition, the respondent Rajesh did not file his written statement. However, ultimately, he filed the written statement, which was taken on record. Against that order the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2169 of 1996 which was decided by this Court by order dated 11th April, 1996. Though this Court rejected that petition, this Court directed that the respondent shall pay as costs to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as a condition precedent for accepting his written statement. However, this Court did not prescribe any time limit for payment of the amount ...
Mitra of Archdiocese of Goa and Daman Vs. Mr. K. Vijayadharan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR425; 2000(1)BomCR857; 2000(1)MhLj615
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This petition arises from the Order dated 11-8-98 passed by the second learned Additional District Judge at Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No. 45/97. By the impugned order, the lower AppellateCourt has allowed the application dated 4th November, 1997 filed by the respondent for amendment of the written statement of the respondent in Regular Civil Suit No. 241/88/B.2. The facts in brief relevant for decision are that the petitioner herein filed Regular Civil Suit No. 241/88/B in the Civil Court, J.D., Panaji on 26-8-1988 for declaration that the respondent has no right of whatsoever nature to the suit house and that he is a trespasser and therefore for his eviction from the suit house. The suit house is situated in the property called 'Mitra' situated at St. Inez within the limits of Panaji Municipal Council and is owned by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was that one Miss Fernanda Amaral was allowed to reside in the suit house during her lifeti...
Santosh Singh Govardhan Singh Kashyap Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR290; 1999(2)MhLj641
ORDERP.S. Patankar, J.1. Heard both sides. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith and the application is disposed of finally.2. The applicant is involved in a crime punishable under sections 363, 366 of Indian Penal Code registered at Sadar Police Station, Nagpur i.e. Crime No. 115/99. He was arrested on 25-3-1999 and was remanded to police custody on 26-3-1999. He continued to remain in police custody. The mandatory period of 60 days was completed on 26-5-1999. No charge sheet was filed. Hence, the applicant moved bail application under section 167(2) of Criminal Procedure Code on 27-5-1999. It came to be rejected by order dated 7-6-1999 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. Hence, this application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed.3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that section 363 is punishable for a maximum period of seven years with fine. Section 366 is punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of 10 year...
Shri Shrirang Krishnaji Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR519
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. The appellant - accused has challenged by this appeal his conviction under section 66(1)(b) of Bombay Prohibition Act, by which he was sentenced to suffer S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer S.I. for one month.2. As per the prosecution case the accused was apprehended by the police on 24-4-1990 and 12 ganja packets and 13 coins of Re. 1/- each were found with the accused. The ganja that was seized was sent to the CA, who confirmed that it was dried heads of hemp plant (ganja). Thereafter the appellant-accused was charge sheeted before the Sessions Court, Solapur. On 19-12-1996 charge sheet under section 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and also under section 66(1)(b) of Bombay Prohibition Act (BP Act) were framed against the accused. Prosecution examined in all six witnesses, two of which were the panchas. However, one of the panchas, namely, Haribhai Pralhad Salunke (P.W. 4) turned...
Piyusha Rajesh Mehta Vs. Rajesh Hiralal Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1999
Reported in: II(2000)DMC152
D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. This petition is not on Board for final hearing. However, with the consent of the parties it is taken up for final hearing. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the petitioner Piyusha has filed a petition before the Family Court for maintenance and permanent injunction against the respondent Rajesh. It appears that in that petition, the respondent Rajesh did not file his written statement. However, ultimately, he filed the written statement, which was taken on record. Against that order the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2169 of 1996 which was decided by this Court by order dated 1lth April, 1996. Though this Court rejected that petition, this Court directed that the respondent shall pay as costs to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as a condition precedent for accepting his written statement. However, this Court did not prescribe any time limit for payment of the amount of th...
G.T.C. Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC374Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri K.K. Gupta, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants who were manufacturers of Cigarettes had obtained cut tobacco under Chapter X procedure of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to enable them to avail the benefit of Notification No. 356/86 dated 24.6.1986. Subsequently, a part of the said tobacco was used by them for making a special brand of tobacco which was exported. The Asstt.Collector of Central Excise who adjudicated the matter held that since prior permission has not been obtained from the proper Officer for such export, the appellants were not eligible for the benefit under the notification and confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 80,235.75 apart from a penalty of Rs. 1000/-. Ld. Counsel submits that in terms of Rule 196A, excisable goods obtained under Rule 192 can be cleared on payment of duty subject to the previous approval of the proper Officer as also cleared for export. The appellants had only made use of a surplus quantity of 3,100 Kgs. o...
Shri Suresh D. Naik and Another Vs. Shri Manguesh R. Wagle and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR176; 2000(1)BomCR851; 2000(4)MhLj157
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioners (defendants in the suit) have come in revision against Order dated 31st July 1998 of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji,whereby the petitioners have been directed to deposit the keys of the suit premises in the Court on or before 4th August 1998 after removing the materials including boxes from inside the suit premises. The Order further states that in case of failure of the defendants to remove the material including boxes from the suit premises on 4th August 1998, the bailiff of the Court shall remove the same on 11th August 1998 at 10.00 a.m. and after making inventory hand over the same to the defendants, who shall remain on site on 11th August 1998, failing which, the custody of the said materials shall be given to the plaintiff, who shall not be held liable for damages, if any, caused or which would be caused to the materials including the boxes.2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to look into the background in w...
Bombay Forgings Ltd. Vs. Prem Singh K. Sonar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1999
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR978]; (2001)IIILLJ556Bom
A.P. Shah, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the Awards Part I and Part II dated August 17, 1994 and December 19, 1994 respectively passed by the 3rd Labour Court, Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 161 of 1987 a proceeding under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing heavy engineering items. The 1st respondent was employed as watchman in the petitioner's company sometime in 1966. On December 13, 1984 the then Managing Director of the company while taking a round found that the 1st respondent had deserted his plant (sic) and was chitchatting with his colleagues at some other plant. On the next day the 1st respondent gave a written apology admitting the mistake and assuring that he would not commit such mistake in future and requested that he may be given one more chance. The 1st respondent was charge-sheeted for the above misconduct. During the enquiry the 1st res...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »