Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR474; 2003(2)BomCR771
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. These appeals raise questions with respect to interpretation and application of a State Government Resolution following upon a policy note issued by the Central Government governing the setting up of new sugar co-operatives. The three Appeals, under letters patent, seek to challenge the common judgment and order dated 9th November, 2001 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the three writ petitions filed by the three appellants.(i) The appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 280 of 2001 is the Chief Promoter of a Sugar Co-operative named as 'Mahatma Basweshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (Proposed)' which intends to set up a sugar factory at village Mal Kavatha, Taluka South Solapur of District Solapur. The appellant is a member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. A writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 4631 of 2001 was filed by him which is rejected by the above common order.(ii) The appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 30 of 2002 is an existing Suga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)(142)ELT619Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Bharat B. Chudasama (hereinafter referred to as A-1) and Shri Bhupendra B. Chudasama (herein after referred to as A-2) were passengers, on Gulf Air Flight No. GF 0064, dated 13-4-97 from Dubai to Mumbai. They were intercepted on specific intelligence with the officers, 85 Foreign Marked Gold bars were found with each of them along with foreign currency US $ 6215 with Al and US $ 6215, UAE Dhirams 320, one half Riyal of Oman and one note of 100 Baiza of Oman with A-2 which was not declared and no duty was paid on the Gold in convertible foreign exchange, which they were entitled.2. Enquiries made revealed that they were carrying the Gold found with them on behalf of one Tahirbhai of Dubai. They cleared the same through Customs in Arrival Hall on instructions of a Cousin Brother of Tahirbhai by getting themselves cleared through Green channel and not putting the carry Bags containing the Gold through the X-Ray Machine.3. One Karim H. Devji of Mumbai was identified to be the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(25)PTC52(Bom)
D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 9th October, 1997 passed by the Asst. Registrar of Trade-marks. 2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the Respondent No. 1 submitted an application for registration of its trade-mark. That application was advertised. The Petitioner on 11.2.1992 filed a notice of opposition as required by the provisions of Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act. A copy of the notice of opposition submitted by the Petitioner was forwarded by the Registrar to the Respondent No. 1 through his attorney alongwith letter dated 26.4.1993. The Notice of opposition was received by the attorney for the Respondent No. 1 on 5.5.1993. The Respondent No. 1 filed his counter-statement on 7.7.1993. On 15.11.1993, the Registrar issued a show cause notice to the Respondent No. 1 to show cause why his counter-statement filed on 7.7.1993 should not be taken on record as it has been filed beyond the perio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR797; 2003(1)MhLj985
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Mrs. Mondale for the petitioners. Respondent has been served but she is absent and none present for her. The petitioner ishereby assailing the correctness, propriety, and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Bombay, in Municipal Petition No. 168/1987 whereby the learned Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondent in context with the provisions of Section 394(5) of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, B.M.C. Act for convenience.)2. The respondent Mrs. Jani had contended before the learned Judge in the said appeal that she had taken over the business which was carried on by M/s C. S. Pocha and Sons in respect of a godown which was situated at Palekar Road, near Jagannath Shankarsheth Road, Girgaum. However, the petitioner B.M.C. refused to renew the said licence when she had applied for that. She contended that the said business was carried on by M/s C. S. Pocha from 1964 till 1973 and therefore, s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(4)BomCR508; (2002)3BOMLR910; [2002(95)FLR129]; (2002)IIILLJ115Bom; 2002(2)MhLj956
V. G. Palshikar, J.1. Both these petitions raise identical questions of law for adjudication and, therefore, are disposed of by this common order. All the three petitioners in these two petitions are employees of the Reserve Bank of India and have resigned from their service after rendering service of more than twenty years. After resignation, they have claimed pensionary benefits which were rejected by the Reserve Bank of India by passing appropriate orders. This rejection is questioned in both these petitions.2. In Writ Petition No. 615 of 1996 the petitioners have claimed a declaration that Regulation 18 of Pension Regulation, 1990 be declared unconstitutional as it is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory whereas the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2586 of 1997 has claimed that Regulation 26(3-A) of the Reserve Bank of India Staff Regulations, 1948 is not prospective in nature and, therefore, petitioner is entitled to grant of benefit of pension as his resignation is equivalen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(25)PTC626(Bom)
D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 22nd December, 1993 passed by the Asst. Registrar of Trademarks. By that order the Asst. Registrar has disallowed the opposition filed by the Petitioner to the application submitted by the Respondent No. 1 for registration of their trade mark. 2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this Petition are that the Petitioner is a partnership firm doing business of manufacture and sale of ready-madegarments and various like articles made from leather and imitation of leather. The Respondent is a company incorporated under the Laws of France. The Petitioner started using the trade mark Newman written in a particular style, so that the New and Man were written one under other and they were written in such a style that if the words are read up side down they also read as Newman. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner started using that trade mark since April, 1979. In 1988, the Respondent No, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : II(2002)DMC292
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard learned Advocate for the appellants and learned APP for the State.2. All the four accused have been convicted by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli by his judgment dated 17.9.1991 for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and fine under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer R.I. for three years and fine under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.3. Two girls Laxmi and Sharada, who were daughters-in-law of accused Nos. 3 and 4 and wives of accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, committed suicide on the same day by drowning themselves into the well. Laxmi and Sharada were married on the same day to accused No. 1 Shankar and accused No. 2 Rajaram respectively. Within fifteen months they committed suicide because of torture and demand of Rs. 20,000/-. This is the prosecution case.4. The prosecution examined Hirabai - the mother of Laxmi as P.W. 1, Navsherkhan ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(4)BomCR579
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This Writ Petition invoking Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India is filed by a tenant of aa building which became dilapidated and wastherefore demolished and reconstructed, but thetenant has not been provided with an accommodationin the reconstructed building, although thereconstruction was under a statutory scheme torehouse and protect the tenants of the dilapidatedbuildings. The petition seeks implementation ofthe agreement executed by the landlord of thebuilding with the petitioner-tenant under thestatutory scheme and also the implementation of asupplemental agreement in that behalf between thetwo. In this process, the petition raisesimportant questions of law and with respect to theimplementation of such welfare schemes and theirlikely misuse, and also with respect to the actionsand inactions by public officers in-charge of suchstatutory schemes.2. Respondent No.1 to the petition isMaharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority(shortly known as 'MHADA'), w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(3)ALLMR439; 2002(3)BomCR461; 2002(3)MhLj420
P.S. Patankar, J.1. The petitioner by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is praying for a declaration that he came to be confirmed with effect from 5-6-1996 and is entitled for continuity as well as for consequential benefits from that date. He further prays for quashing the Notification issued by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on 28th March, 2000 by which his service as a probationer Judge of the City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, came to be terminated.2. The petitioner came to be appointed as a Judge in the Bombay City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay with effect from 5th June, 1995. The Order dated 29th April, 1995 shows that it was on probation for one year. On 7-7-1997 by passing a Resolution it came to be extended for a period of one year from 5-6-1998 to 4-6-1999. Notification/Order dated 28th March, 2000 came to be issued. The said Notification/Order inter alia says :--'But since, he did not comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)(143)ELT363Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal taken up tor disposal, with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The order of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal, demands duty on goods imported by the appellant on the ground that the benefit of Notification 203/92 would not be available to it for the reason that Modvat credit was availed of in the manufacture of exported products.He has also imposed a penalty.3. The representative of the appellant submits that, subsequent to the proceedings before the Commissioner, it has received evidence in the form of a certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities to the effect that Modvat credit was not availed of in the manufacture of the exported products.4. We note that the appellant did not raise this contention in the reply to the notice or appeared before the Commissioner, for reasons that are not clear. We are therefore of the view that the evidence that is now produced should be considered by the Commissioner.5. The appeal is accordingly a...
Tag this Judgment!