Mumbai Court April 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.
Rajendraprasad Kedarprasad Tiwari Vs. Shankar Vithu Kuveskar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR887; 2002(3)BomCR425; (2002)4BOMLR126; 2002(3)MhLj498
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Respondent/landlord had filed eviction suit against the petitioner on various grounds. The Trial Court by judgment dated 11th January, 1999 dismissed the suit on all grounds. 3. Aggrieved, the Respondent/Landlord preferred an appeal. By judgment and order dated 29th January, 2002 the appeal was allowed, on the ground that the defendant has acquired suitable alternative accommodation as also on the ground that the defendant has kept the suit premises vacant for six months before the suit. I do not propose to consider the issue of keeping vacant the premises for six months before filing of the suit. The sole issue is, as to whether the tenant after creation of the tenancy and coming into force of the Act has built, acquired vacant possession of/or been allotted premises for residence. On behalf of the petitioner, their learned counsel assailed the order of the Appellate Court on the following ...
Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR723; 2002(4)BomCR497; (2002)4BOMLR382; 2002(4)MhLj758
A.P. Shah, J.1. These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution seek to challenge the Notification dated 15-9-2001 issued by the State of Maharashtra amending the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1981, hereinafter referred to as the Scheme, framed under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards(Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as the Security Guards Act. 2. The petitioners are trade unions registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and have as their members security guards employed in various establishments in Mumbai and Thane. The principal challenge to the impugned notification is on the ground that the notification is ultra vires the provisions of the Security Guards Act. In order to understand the challenge in the petitions, it is necessary to briefly refer to the objects and the various provisions of the Security Guards Act and the Scheme framed under Section 4(1) of the said Ac...
Babulal @ Damodhar S/O Hiralal Gujarathi and ors. Vs. Kisan S/O Shripa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj734
Naresh H. Patil, J.1. The petitioners have filed this civil revision application being aggrieved by an order dated 20th July, 1993 passed below Exhibit 23 in Regular Civil Suit No. 97 of 1990, by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chopada, District Jalgaon, ordering reference of issue Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to the Mamlatdar under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act of 1948').2. The plaintiffs had raised the contentions that the suit land was owned by them. The respondents defendants were in possession of the suit lands as the legal representatives of one Kisan Shripat Patil. The said Kisan Patil was inducted in the suit land by the mother of the plaintiffs, Tarabai w/o Hiralal, on 5th June, 1945 by executing a rent deed in his favour. Accordingly, Kisan came in possession of the suit land as a tenant. The suit land was situated within the municipal limits of Chopada town. The municipal district of Chopada was constituted in the year 1905 b...
M.D. Panchbhai Vs. S.J. Fulzele and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR489
R.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court for institution of commission to assess loss to the Trust of Dikshabhoomi and to him; to appoint him as a receiver of the same and to provide police and other protection. We have heard the petitioner in person at length and also learned Advocate Shri C.S. Kaptan for respondent No. 1 and learned Advocate Shri A.M. Gordey for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. The petitioner has submitted before us that no reply has been filed to the petition and since the allegations relating to misappropriation of rupees twenty lacs are untraversed, Dikshabhoomi be placed in his hands.3. Learned Advocate Shri C.S. Kaptan, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, has urged before us that in respect of the same subject matter, Civil Suit No. 1 of 1975 has been filed by the petitioner before the District Judge, Nagpur under section 50 of Bombay Public Trusts Act for framing a scheme for removal of trustees which is pending; neither the trust nor all tr...
Wipro Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR107
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of Vegetable Products and Toilet Soaps. The petitioner No. 2 is a share-holder of petitioner No. 1 company. The factory manufacturing Vanaspati is located at Amalner in Jalgaon district. Vanaspati being manufactured by petitioner No. 1 was subjected to various processes and raw material used was raw vegetable oils like groundnut oil, etc. The Government of India thought it appropriate to encourage such manufacturers to use other raw oils like cotton seed oil, ricebran oil, solvent rapeseed oil, etc; which are popularly known as minor raw oils. The Government thought it appropriate to formulate a scheme to encourage use of alternative raw oils instead of groundnut oil or soyabean oil which involved a heavy outflow of financial liabilities required for import of these oils.2. Vanaspati so manufactured is excisable under sub-headi...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Q.S. Shipchandler and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR890; 2002(3)BomCR430; (2002)3BOMLR671; 2002(2)MhLj896
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This 'Writ Petition is filed by the Union of India through its Chief Commercial Superintendent Central Railways, having their Office at Bombay V.T., Bombay, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 25th September, 1990 passed by the Consumers Disputes Redressel Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission' for the sake of brevity), Maharashtra State, New Bombay in Complaint No. 10/1990. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the said Commission ordered the Central Railway to pay Rs. 2,372/- to the Complainant as cost of the complaint, within thirty days and also directed the Central Railway to recover from passengers the actual fair fixed by the Central Government under section 30(1) of the Railways Act and published for A/C Chair Car bogies attached to Indrayani Express and Deccan Express plying between Bombay-Pune till the fare is revised by the Central Government.2. I have heard Mr. Samant for petitioners. Respondent No. 1, who was the original c...
In Re: Siddharth Srivastava
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR115(Bom)
ORDERJ.A. Patil, J.1. The petitioning creditor has filed this petition under Section 9 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (for short, the Act) for adjudicating the judgment debtor as insolvent on the ground that he has committed act of insolvency. The relevant facts necessary for appreciation of the prayers in the petition are in brief as under :-- 2. The petitioning creditor had invested a sum of Rs. 5 crores by way of equity investment with the Asia Television Network Ltd. (for short 'ATM') under a memorandum of agreement dated 21-3-1996. The judgment debtor was at all material times and is the Chairman and Managing Director of the said ATN. It appears that certain disputes arose between the parties in connection with the memorandum of agreement and therefore, the petitioning creditor filed an arbitration petition No. 14/1997 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (for short the Act, 1997'). In that proceeding, the parties arrived at a settlement and ...
Newman Vs. Jacques Jaunet S.A. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC479(Bom)
J.A. Patil, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 (for short, the Act) challenging the order dated 24.11.1994 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks allowing application No. 437595 filed by the Respondent No. 1 for registration of their trade mark 'NEWMAN' in class 18 and rejecting opposition No. BOM - 8039 filed by the petitioner. Hence this appeal. 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act carrying on business inter alia of manufacturing and marketing readymade garments and other allied goods made from leather and imitation of leather. Respondent No. 1 is a Societe Anonyme registered under the law of France who sought registration in India for their trade mark 'NEW MAN' in respect of leather goods such as purses, trunks, suit cases, travelling bags, port folios etc. in class 18. The petitioners had made several applications for registration of the Trade Mark 'NEW-MAN' in Clauses 16, 17, 1...
Uda Bhura Chavan Vs. Deputy Engineer, P.W.D.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR742; 2002(5)BomCR608; [2002(95)FLR735]; (2002)IVLLJ203Bom
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner, a daily rated labourer, under the Dy. Engineer, Public Works Division, Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon is aggrieved by thejudgment and order dated March 25, 1994 passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik in Revision Application ULP No. 173 of 1993 filed by thedepartment against the judgment and order dated April 12, 1993 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint ULP No. 21 of 1987 wherein, thepetitioner was aggrieved by the order of termination w.e.f. September 1, 1983. According to the petitioner, it was an act of unfair labourpractice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.2. The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that the petitioner was employed as a daily rated labourer (Cartman) from January 9, 1976. He worked upto August 31, 1983 and that his services came to be terminated illegally w.e.f. August 1, 1983. (I have given the dates as reflected in the proceedings from place to place). According to the petitioner, in his co...
Hari S. Yadav Vs. Hiralal Prabhu Yadav and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR177
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Respondent waives service.Heard forthwith.Respondent No. 1 original plaintiff had filed a suit against petitioner and respondent No. 2 before the Small Causes Court at Mumbai which was numbered as R.A.E. Suit No. 4802 of 1978. The suit was for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises on the ground that the petitioner a monthly tenant was in arrears of rent and inspite of statutory notice had failed to pay the amount. Some other grounds was also set out inclining that the defendant No. 1 in the suit, respondent No. 2 herein, had unlawfully inducted petitioner in the suit premises. The petitioner herein filed his written statement on 13-9-1982 contending that he was protected under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. It was further pointed out that the area where the structure was situated was declared as slum under Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. No permission of the authority has been taken and considerin...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »