Mumbai Court November 2002 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.
Pushpa W/O Pundlik Salame Vs. Additional Commissioner and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR640; (2003)2BOMLR544; 2003(1)MhLj756
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith.2. As respondent No. 2 has admittedly expired, advocate for the petitioner seeks leave to delete the name of respondent No. 2.3. Leave granted. Respondent No. 2 be deleted.4. Heard the parties. This writ petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division by which the said Additional Commissioner has entertained an appeal filed by the Sarpanch of Nakhegaon Gram Panchayat against the order passed by the Additional Collector under the provisions of Section 29(4) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. After hearing the parties, I am inclined to allow this petition on the short ground that the Commissioner has no power to entertain an appeal under Section 29(4) as such appeal can only be filed by the Member or Sarpanch aggrieved by the decision of the Collector.5. The reference to the word, 'Sarpanch' in Section 29(4) is obviously to a Sarpanch who has resigned, as the provisions to ...
Asstt. Engn., Lower Vena Canal and ors. Vs. Member, Industrial Court a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR770]; 2003(1)MhLj801
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard Shri Gilda, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri Kankale, AGP for respondent No. 2 and Shri Issac, Advocate for respondent No. 3. 2. This is a writ petition impugning an order dated 5-1-2002 passed by the Second Labour Court, Nagpur, in purported exercise of powers of review and order of the Learned Member, industrial Court, Nagpur, dated 23-7-2002 passed in Revision (ULPN) No. 61 of 2002, by which the order of the Labour Court referred to hereinabove has been confirmed. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows : (a) That, on 12-4-1980, respondent No. 3 was appointed by the petitioners as a Mustering Assistant. There was an enquiry against him against charges of insubordination and absenteeism and after enquiry, by an order dated 14-9-1993, the services of respondent No. 3 came to be terminated. (b) On 22-9-1993, respondent No. 3 filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 197...
Vijay Krishnaji Deshpande Vs. Guru Siddha Sidram Mhatre Since Deceased ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR1078; 2003(3)BomCR296; 2003(2)MhLj81
S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioner is the legal heir of one Radhabai who was the original landlady of the agricultural land in question. These lands were cultivated by one Guru Siddha Mhatre as a tenant.2. Before the Tiller's date i.e. 1-4-1957 Radhabai has made an application dated 25-3-1957 to the Additional Tehsildar for possession of the lands in question. This application was under Section 31' of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. She withdrew that application on 21-6-1958 i.e. after the Tiller's day. Thus her claim for possession came to an end. On 22-4-1961 the petitioner who is the adopted son of Radhabai became major. Radhabai died on 28-3-1962. The petitioner claims that the respondent tenant's right to purchase the lands in question was postponed under Section 32-F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. According to the petitioner since the respondent tenant has not exercised the right of purchase within the postponed period prescribed by Section 32-F, th...
Allied Auto Accesories Ltd. Vs. Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR367; 2003(27)PTC115(Bom)
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. On an application moved under Section 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 ('the Act') by the first respondent, the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks passed an order on 21st June, 1989 which is challenged in these proceedings. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks allowed the application and directed that the registration granted of the mark of the appellant in Class 12 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 ('the Rules') would stand expunged from the Register of Trade Marks. The appellant has moved this Court in an appeal under Section 109 of the Act. Registration of the appellant's mark :2. The appellant was incorporated on 27th April, 1968 and claims to have adopted the word mark 'Allied' in respect of parts and fittings of automobiles. On 3rd November, 1978 an application was filed by the appellant (342368-B) for the registration of its word mark 'Allied' in Class 12 before the Registrar of Trade Marks claiming that...
Nagpur University Officers' Association, through Its Secretary, Nagpur ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR158
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. Petitioner No. 1, a registered association of the employees of the Nagpur University alongwith some of its members have approached this Court challenging the action of the respondent No. 3 - University of not implementing the resolution/decision passed by the Executive Council of Nagpur University to grant pay-scales to its non-teaching officers/staff on par with the University teaching staff. Petitioners have also challenged the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent/State Government to grant necessary sanction to the decision of the University referred to above for giving effect and implementing the said resolution/decision for the benefit of the non-teaching staff. Petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively held the substantive posts of Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar, Garden Superintendent and Press Superintendent. The petitioner No. 1 has, therefore, filed this Petition in a representative capacity also.2. It is the contention of the petitioners ...
Veritas Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Mumbai)289
ORDERI.P. Bansal, J.M.This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 8-10-1995 for the assessment year 1992-93.2. In ground No. 1, the grievance of the assessee is regarding set off of unabsorbed carried forward depreciation. According to the assessee there was unabsorbed carried forward depreciation amounting to Rs. 8,75,143. As per the provisions of section 34A the assessee claimed set-off of unabsorbed depreciation for the year under consideration at the rate of 6-2/3 per cent amounting to Rs. 5,83,370. According to the assessing officer the amount of depreciation is amounting to Rs. 5,64,033 and by application of section 34A, the assessing officer allowed the sum of Rs. 3,76,022. The assessing officer calculated the unabsorbed carried forward depreciation at Rs. 5,64,033 on the basis of capitalised incidental expenses which were not considered for depreciation for the assessment year 1986-87. Therefore, the assessing offic...
ExfIn Shipping (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT534Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing the parties on the stay application, we have decided to take up the appeal.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner suspending, under Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (hereafter regulation), the Custom House Agent's licence issued to the applicant. The stay application was first heard on 12th August and was ad journed twice to today so that the departmental representative could submit further details.3. The Commissioner has advanced two reasons for suspension of the licence. The first is that R.G. Gawade, who was customs clerk of the appellant at the relevant time, assaulted an officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, apparently trying to prevent the officer from discharging his official duties and was arrested for this offence. The second is that action has been initiated against the appellant under Regulation 23 for contravention of various regulations.4. As to the first charge, counsel for the appella...
R.M. Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT464Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When this matter was called, the Counsel for the appellant sought adjournment on the ground that he was not prepared. It was pointed out to him that in terms of the order dated 19-8-2002, the application for condonation was to be decided within a week of its filing and the appeal within four months in the light of this specific direction of the Court, it was not possible for us to adjourn the matter. Thereupon the Counsel for the appellant requested that the matter to be passed over. It was passed over three times and on either occasion Mr. Mohan Salian, the Advocate requested for one more pass over on the ground that Mr. V.S. Nankani was on his way. Accordingly, the matter was passed over once again. However, on the last occasion, at about 4.30 p.m. Mr. V.S. Nankani riot being present, we offered an opportunity to Mr. Mohan Salian, Advocate to argue the matter. He declined to do so.Thereupon, having read the appeal and other papers and heard the departmental representative, we pro...
Maharashtra Plastic Indus. and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)(106)LC657Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals are against order-in-original dated 12.8.1997 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai-IV who has: (iv) Imposed penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- under Rule 9(2) on M/s. M.P. Industries (v) Confiscated land, building, plant etc. under Rule 173Q(2) but allowed redemption on fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and 2. In this ease, the main issue relates to admissibility of exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993. This Notification grants exemption to small scale units subject to fulfilling certain conditions. Paragraph 4 of the Notification bars exemption to goods bearing a brand name or trade name of another person. Therefore, if a small scale unit produces goods bearing brands of others, it has to pay duty on the same. While such a restriction is understandable, Explanation III to the Notification introduces a totally different dimension. The exemption is available to units not exceeding certain clearance limit. Explanation III specifically excludes from such...
Shrijee Nutrients Food Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Maharashtra State Financial
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: IV(2004)BC206
1. This Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 being aggrieved by the order dated 4.7.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on Interlocutory Application No. 482 of 2002 in Original Application No.316 of 2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer dismissed the interlocutory application made by the appellants to stay the proceedings under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, pending in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur till decision of the Special Civil Suit No. 1034 of 1996, pending on the file of Civil Judge (S.D.), Nagpur. The original applicant Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to for the sake of brevity as the Corporation) filed Misc. Civil Application No. 843 of 1996 under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 in the Court of District Judge, Nagpur against the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 (applicant Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 and the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »