Mumbai Court January 2002 Judgments
Shri Devadeveshwar Sansthan, Parvati and Kothrud Vs. Sushila Raghu Kad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR292; [2002(94)FLR766]; (2002)IVLLJ28Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner challenges the Part-1 Award dated March 10, 1995 passed by the 3rd Labour Court, Pune in Reference (IDA) No. 68 of 1989 declaring them as an 'Industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The petitioner claims to be a charitable trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The trust maintains four temples in Pune which are historical monuments. According to the petitioner, it receives donations from well wishers but the trust gets no grant from the Government. The petitioner states that Nanasaheb Peshwa established the private temple in the year 1749 adjacent to the main temple at Parvati. The lands adjacent to the temples were also donated by the family to the public. A memorandum of management was drawn up in the year 1941 to look after the management and administration of the temples. The trust was then registered by the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Adil Pestonji Elavia Vs. Feroze Pestonji Elavia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR552
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Respondent absent. None present for him. The petition pertains to the year 1988. Therefore, treating the respondent as ex parte, this petition is being heard.2. The suit property is a tenement in Cusrow Baug situated in Colaba area owned by R.N. Wadia Trust. In the year 1971, as the record shows, the respondent Feroze Pestonji Elavia had applied to get the said tenement as licensee by submitting an application in which it was specifically mentioned that he was to reside in the said tenement along with his mother and brother Adil who happens to be the present petitioner. Three of them i.e. respondent No. 1, the present petitioner and their mother resided in the said tenement till 1973 but on account of the marriage of Firoze (respondent 1), his wife entered in the family but unfortunately she was not able to have good relations with mother-in-law. It may be also that the mother-in-law was not able to have good relations with daughter-in-law. The result was one and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Prashant Vs. S.K. Sarkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD(Cri)953; 2002BomCR(Cri)672; 2002CriLJ3001; 2002(2)MhLj125
1. Heard Mrs. Shinde, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri S.D. Dewani, learned Advocate for the non-applicant.2. The revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.12.2000 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision No. 306 of 2000 whereby Additional Sessions Judge allowed the same.3. Mrs. Shinde, learned Counsel for the applicant, contended that the applicant/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for the sake of brevity, it will be referred as an Act) against the non-applicant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Corporation Court No.1, Nagpur, who was pleased to summon the non-applicant/accused to defend the charge alleged and levied against him.4. It is contended that the non-applicant/ accused on 21.01.2000 moved an application below Exhibit-15 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class for quashing the proceedings against him on the ground that there was no legal notice issue...
Tag this Judgment!Gangaram Rambhau Zite and ors. Vs. Chindhu Dagadu Tikone Since Decease ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom1; 2002(3)BomCR594; (2002)3BOMLR435; 2002(2)MhLj770
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J. 1. The appellants are the original defendants in the suit filed by the original plaintiff for declaration that the suit lane in the property was the property of the plaintiff and he sought permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from disturbing the plaintiff's right to exclusively enjoy the possession of the said small lane adjoining his house. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune. The plaintiff was aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order of the learned Judge, and therefore, he filed a Civil Appeal before the Additional District Judge Pune. The Lower Appellate Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune and granted declaration that the appellant was the owner of the suit property and the defendants and their servants and agents were perpetually restrained from causing obstruction to the plaintiff's possession of ...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Goresh Domesztic Appliances and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC517(Bom)
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the entry in respect of trade mark 'JYOTI' under No. 421846 in class 7 in the name of respondent No. 1. According to the averments in the petition, the petitioner is a registered proprietor of the trade mark 'JYOTI' and that registration was made in August 1982. According to the averments in the petition, on 14th May 1984, one Shri Jai Narain Agarwal, who was sole proprietor of M/s Maharashtra Enterprises, applied for registration of trade mark 'JYOTI' in class 7 and pursuant to that application, the trade mark 'JYOTI' was registered in favour of the said person on 14th May 1984. Thus, in this petition, the petitioner is challenging an entry made in the trade mark register on 14th May, 1984. This petition has been filed under Section 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 56 are relevant, they read as under :-'56. Power to cancel or vary registration and to rectify the register...
Tag this Judgment!Leena Patade (Smt.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of Labour and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ314Bom
1. Heard the learned counsel for parties.Rule. Respondents waive service. By content Rule is made returnable forthwith. The short question which falls for our consideration is whether the appropriate Government was justified in declining to make a reference of an industrial dispute arising out of the termination of service of the petitioner for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner was employed with the respondent No. 3 Bank in 1988 as a Clerk in Trade Services Department and was doing clerical/technical duties. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to higher grade vide letter of promotion dated August 27, 1994. According to the petitioner she continued to do the same duties of clerical/technical even after her promotion. By letter of termination dated January 15, 2001 the petitioner's services were terminated by the Bank. Being aggrieved, the petitioner vide her letter dated January 15, 2001 raised ...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanarayan Malpani Vs. Sushiladevi S. Malpani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR476; 2002(3)BomCR587
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the defendant No. 2 praying that the operative part of the order passed by Mr. S.S. Nijjar, J. in the Notice of Motion No. 557 of 1995 be corrected so as to read and be applicable in respect of the land admeasuring 8022.23 square metres, bearing CTS No. 2-B part and 2-H of village Kandivli, Taluka Borivli, Bombay Sub-urban District instead of the land described in the schedule Exhibit A to the plaint.2. The suit is filed by the father-in-law of defendant No. 1 and father of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are husband and wife. The suit is filed by the plaintiff praying inter alia that the Deed of Cancellation dated 25th January, 1985 (Exhibit 'K' to the plaint) and the Deed of Confirmation dated 7th September, 1988 (Exhibit 'L' to the plaint) are legal, valid and subsisting and binding on the parties thereto and that the agreement dated 6th February, 1980 (Exhibit 'D' to the plaint) stands cancelled by the Deed...
Tag this Judgment!Vinand S/O Dattaram Nakashe Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)653; 2002CriLJ3208
J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard Mr. M.R. Daga, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. T.D. Khade, learned A.P.P. for respondents.2. The petitioner who is younger brother of the detenu Vishwajeet s/o Dattaram Nakashe, has challenged the detention order passed by the respondent No. 2, by this petition. The detenu Vishwajeet Dattaram Nakashe, came to be detained on 30-8-2001, on the strength of detention order dated 23-8-2001 passed by the respondent No. 2, under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996) (hereinafter referred to as 'M.P.D.A. Act'). The detention order along with grounds of detention which are also dated 23-8-2001 came to be furnished to the detenu which are annexed to the petition.3. The prejudicial activities of the detenu which lead to passing of the impugned order of detention are contained in the grounds of detention.4. T...
Tag this Judgment!Suman Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT640Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant processed grey fabrics received from traders on job work basis. On 5-1-1989 a vehicle containing goods cleared from the premises was intercepted and was brought back to the factory.Discrepancies were noted in the original and other copies of the gate passes covering the consignment. Examination of gate passes under which goods had earlier been removed showed that while the first copy was fully completed the other copies were left blank. The fabrics totally valued at Rs. 4,04,124/- were seized along with the tempo. The Excise Clerk admitted that the modus of leaving the other copy blank was to enable evasion of duty and that it was done at the instance of Champalal Chopra, Director.2. Investigations showed number of discrepancies in the lot registers which the Excise Clerk admitted were done deliberately under the instructions of Champalal Chopra. Chopra in his statement dated 9-1-1989 accepted the large-scale variations, erasions and scoring out in a number of registe...
Tag this Judgment!Eagle Steel Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(102)LC632Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We waive pre-deposit of duty confirmed on the basis of determination of the annual capacity of production of the assessee's re-rolling mill and proceed to dispose off the appeal itself with the consent of both sides since the issue in dispute stands settled by the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sawan Mal Shibumal Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE, Chandigarh I 2001 (42) RLT 75 : 2001 (94) ECR 155 (T-LB).2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein were engaged in the manufacture of hot re-rolled products of steel falling under heading 72 of the Schedule to the CETA and opted for compounded levy scheme according to which annual capacity of production of the mill was to be determined and fixed by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise in accordance with the provisions of Section 3A and the Rules framed thereunder. The annual capacity for the financial year 1997-98 was determined at 32000 MTs. Thereafter the appellants sought change in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »