Mumbai Court March 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.
Rajendra S/O Ramchandra Sonawane Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR355; (2002)3BOMLR313; 2002(4)MhLj884
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith in all the three petitions. The learned Counsel for respective respondents waive service. Taken up for final hearing by consent.2. Some vacancies in the office of the respondent No. 3 were reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. The petitioners, in all these petitions, made application for appointment to the posts reserved for the Scheduled Tribes claiming that they belonged to 'Tokare Koli', which is a notified Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners produced the caste/tribe certificates obtained from the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Jalgaon, between April, 1989 and July, 1989, purportedly bearing the signature of Shri Hemraj Hiraman Saraf, the then Executive Magistrate, Jalgaon.3. The petitioners were interviewed, selected and appointed by the respondent No. 3 to the posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes on the basis of the said caste/tribe certificates. The learned Counsel for the petitioners was unable to give even the a...
Aruna Kashinath Koli Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR745
A.B. Naik, J.1. The above writ petition is placed for admission and with the consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties, the petition is heard finally at the admission stage itself. 2. Rule. Rule is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims, MS. Nasik (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee'). 4. The petitioner-Miss Aruna Koli, through the Principal, Maharashtra Higher Secondary Science College, Nilanga, applied for verification of her tribe claim, as she intended to prosecute further studies claiming herself as belonging to 'Mahadeo Koli' Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner, admittedly is the resident of village Dabka, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur. The family of the petitioner originally resident of Ausa Taluka & District Latur. After receipt of the application of the petitioner, the Committee noticed the petitioner and directed he...
Shri Kanhayalal Ramlal Bagadia, Indian Inhabitant, Carrying on Busines ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR414; 2002(4)BomCR54; (2002)4BOMLR781; 2002(2)MhLj802
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The Petitioner has impugned an order ofrequisition dated 17-2-1966 passed under theRequisition and Acquisition of Immovable PropertyAct, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the saidAct') and seeks recovery of possession of thepremises requisitioned thereunder. The petitionalso seeks compensation for wrongful use of thesaid premises from the date on which therequisition order came to an end till possessionof the premises is handed over to the Petitioner.2. Respondent No.2 is the Collector ofBombay. Respondent No.3 is the Union of India.Respondent No.4 is the Senior Superintendent ofPost Offices.3. Unit Nos.10A and 10B on the ground floor ofBharat Industrial Estate situate at Sewree, Mumbai( hereinafter referred to as 'the premises') wereoriginally owned by one P.I. Bhatia from whom thefirm M/s.Kanhayalal and Company acquired the same.On dissolution of the firm, the said premises cameto the share of the Petitioner who is nowadmittedly the owner thereof.4. In exercise of...
R.K. Textiles Vs. Sulabh Textiles Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR897; 2003(1)ARBLR303(Bom); 2002(5)BomCR267; 2002(4)MhLj678; [2003]44SCL228(Bom)
J.A. Patil, J.1. The respondents Sulabh Textiles Pvt. Ltd. have taken out this Chamber Summons and prayed for a declaration that the Arbitral Award dated 6-9-2000 passed in Arbitration Case No. A/152/1998-99 on the file of Hindustan Chamber of Commerce ('HCC' for short) is without jurisdiction, illegal, null and void and not enforceable against the respondents. They have further prayed for quashing and setting aside the Execution Application taken out by the applicants R. K. Textiles and for raising attachment issued by this Court under the two warrants of attachment dated 21-4-2001 on the respondents properties. A few relevant facts are necessary for proper appreciation of the prayers made by the respondents.2. The respondents carry on business of manufacturing of blended fabrics and they are not the members of HCC. The applicants are cloth merchants and they are the members of HCC. It appears that sometime in July or August, 1997 the respondents had placed an oral order for purchase ...
Shamshadbegam Unus Inamdar Vs. Aminasaheb Bandgisaheb Mokashi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR780; 2002(4)MhLj499
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. Rule. Respondent waives service. Heard forthwith. 2. Respondent-landlord had filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner tenant. The only ground on which eviction was sought was non-payment of rent. Proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. The trial Court by its order dated 17th September, 1997 was pleased to dismiss the suit. Aggrieved the petitioner preferred an Appeal. The learned Appellate Court by its order dated 5th May, 2001 was pleased to reverse the judgment of the trial Court and allowed the Appeal. The point for determination and the finding recorded therein by the Appellate Court was whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is a wilful defaulter in payment of rent amount in respect of the suit premises since 14th December, 1991. It answered the point in the affirmative. The Appellate Court had recorded a finding that the notice dated 22nd April, 1993 Exh. 17 as req...
R.N. Engineer and ors. Vs. Kaushik H. Desai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR833
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners along with respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the opponents in application being Change Report No. 591 of 1999 pending before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai, Region Mumbai. Respondent No. 1 is the original applicant. There is a body known as Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) Registered Society. The society is bound to hold its annual general body meeting in terms of memorandum, constitution and bye-laws. It is alleged that the respondent No. 1 had convened annual general body meeting on 30-8-1999 at Delhi. The registered office/head quarters of the Institute of the Mechanical Engineers (India) is situated at Mumbai.The petitioners herein had filed a Suit No. 5260 of 1999 in Bombay City Civil Court at Mumbai to restrain respondent No. 1 from holding annual general body meeting on 30-8-1999. The Civil Court rejected the petitioner's application and allowed the meeting to be convened. The appeal preferred against the said o...
Mahomed Hassan Samru Vs. Peer Hazarath Diwanshah Dargah Trust and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR66; 2002(6)BomCR253
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 takes exception to the order passed by the Joint District Judge, Thane dated 31-10-1991 passed below Exhibit 13 in Trust Suit No. 1 of 1991. Briefly stated, respondents No. 1 to 3 in the writ petition filed suit against the petitioner-defendant No. 1 and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 defendants Nos. 2 and 3 for the following reliefs :-'(a) It may be declared that the suit lease deed dated 9th February 1887, executed by plaintiff No. 2 in favour of the defendant is void, bad in law and/or voidable and/or inequitable, inoperative and is not binding on the plaintiffs.(b) It may be declared that the defendant is not entitled to seek non-agricultural permission and/or otherwise to put the property for non-agricultural use on the basis of the suit lease deed mentioned in (a) above.(c) The defendant acting for himself through agents, servants and relatives, directly or indirectly or otherwise be restrained by an order of otherwise be restr...
Umashankar D. Shukla Vs. New Shakti Dye Works Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR772; 2002(5)BomCR772; [2002(94)FLR367]
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra in appeal filed by the respondent company against the order of the Labour Court at Thane directing the respondent company to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages and continuity of service.2. The petitioner was in permanent employment of the respondent company as which machine man for a period of more than 20 years. He was served with two charge-sheets alleging a number of misconducts against him. The petitioner submitted his written explanation denying the charges. The respondent company having not been satisfied with the explanation instituted a domestic enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner was represented by Shri P.S. Sawant, a Union representative. It appears from the record that out of 10 sittings, the petitioner along with his union representative attended the enquiry proceedings on 7 sittings. Thereafter, however, they did not attend the enquiry on the gr...
HussaIn Mohammed Mujawar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR445
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 12.11.1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 186 of 1990, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer two months S.I., for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C.2. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under:The victim Sangeeta P.W. 3 who was aged 7 years at the time of the incident was the daughter of Shalan Mali P.W. 1. Shalan at the time of the incident along with Sangeeta and another daughter Pinky, was living in a room in the house of one Sitaram Balu Chavan situated in village Dafalpur, Taluka Jat, District Sangli. Adjacent to the house of Sitaram Balu Chavan was a boarding house known as Jehangir Boarding House, the owner of which was one Gulab Shaikh. The appellant - Hussain alias Balu Mohammed Mujawar was the nephew of Gulab Shaikh. In between the h...
Marico Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Sarfaraj Trading Company, Hyderaba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom102; 2002(4)BomCR653; (2002)4BOMLR254; 2002(3)MhLj588
P.C.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge refusing to grant leave under clause 14 of the Letters Patent. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was filed by the appellant complaining of violation of copyright under Copyright Act, 1957 as also infringement of trademark and passing off. The appellant have their office at Mumbai and they carry on business within the jurisdiction of this Court. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are carrying business at Hyderabad and respondent No. 4 who is a printer is carrying business at Secundarabad. It is not in dispute that in regard to violation of copyright which the appellants/plaintiffs have alleged in the plaint, this Court has the jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act which, unlike other enactments, gives right to a plaintiff to institute the suit within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit, the plaintiff carries on business or pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »