Mumbai Court May 2002 Judgments
D.R. Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Ac Customs and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(103)LC495(Bombay); 2002(147)ELT3(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.INTRODUCTION1. This petition is filed against the refusal of the Customs Authorities to allow clearance of the printing machine imported by the petitioners under the Open General License ('OGL' for short) under Appendix-I, Part-B, Serial No. 11(17) of the Import-Export Policy 1985-88, which covered Web-fed printing machines having an output of more than 35,000 copies per hour.2.2. The relevant Clause 45 of the Import Policy reads as under:45. Import of Printing Machinery.(1) Printing Machinery listed in Appendix I Part-B of Imports-export Policy 1985-88 will be allowed for import to eligible Actual Users under Open General Licence subject to the conditions laid down.(2) Applications for import of other printing machinery should be made to the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, New Delhi, where the value of the machinery to be imported does not exceed Rs. 1 crore (c.i.f.) and to the Secretariat for Industrial Approvals, Ministry of Industry New Delhi where the value exc...
Tag this Judgment!Dagdu S/O Chotu Pathan, Latur Vs. Rahimbi Dagdu Pathan,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR265; 2003(1)BomCR740; 2003BomCR(Cri)251; (2002)3BOMLR50; II(2002)DMC315; 2002(3)MhLj602
Marlapalle, J.1.The Petitioner was married to the RespondentNo. 1 Rahimbi; and they begot three children from thesaid wedlock. However, the Respondent No. 1approached the Judicial Magistrate, First Class atLatur by an application under section 125 of theCriminal Procedure Code for maintenance for herselfand for the three children claiming that thePetitioner neglected her and the children after hemarried one Khamrunbee from whom also he begotchildren. He neglected the applicants and refused tomaintain them during the last three years before sheapproached the learned Magistrate.2. On receipt of summons, the Petitioner appearedbefore the Magistrate and filed a written statementopposing the claim made by the Applicants i.e. thepresent Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. He claimed that hehad given Divorce (Talaq) to the Respondent No. 1 on24th February, 1996 in the presence of Qazi and twowitnesses and thereafter he had performed the secondmarriage with Khamrunbee. He also stated that one ofthe witnes...
Tag this Judgment!Kusum Devidas Wankhede Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)147; (2002)3BOMLR536; 2002(2)MhLj921
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. This criminal writ petition has been sent through post by the petitioner Sau. Kusum who is the wife of Devidas Wankhede who has been convicted under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 7 years' of imprisonment by an order dated 17-11-1993 passed by this Hon'ble Court.2. The petitioner did not engage any advocate but sent this petition for release of her husband from the prison as it is her contention that he has already undergone the sentence which was imposed on him and has completed 8 years, 3 months and 19 days of imprisonment including the various remissions to which he is entitled according to law. Since there is no advocate appearing on her behalf, this court vide order dated 1-3-2002 appointed Miss Anita Gupta to appear on her behalf as a counsel from the legal aid panel.3. Rule was granted on 5th April, 2002, and it was made returnable in two weeks, The State Government has filed its submissions on affidavit dated 22-3-2002.4. Facts:...
Tag this Judgment!Medley Laboratories (P) Ltd., Mumbai and anr. Vs. Alkem Laboratories L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR18; 2002(4)BomCR70; 2002(3)MhLj546
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This Appeal is instituted against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on December 21, 2001 in Notice of Motion No. 1790 of 2001. By the impugned Order, the learned Single Judge rejected the application for ad-interim relief filed by the appellants-applicants-plaintiffs. So far as the Motion was concerned, it was made returnable after six weeks, and was ordered to be placed on Board on its own turn.2. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. Suit No. 2597 of 2001 was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing their registered trade mark SPOXIN. It was the case of the plaintiffs that in April, 1984, plaintiff No. 1 applied for and obtained Trade Mark SPOXIN which was registered in Part A of the Register vide No. 420835 in respect of Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Preparations in Class 5. The Registration Certificate was issued, and was renewed from time to time. It was also the say of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Amrut Atre Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR246; (2002)3BOMLR406; (2002)IIILLJ956Bom; 2002(3)MhLj750
C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. This Petition has been referred to a Full Bench, in view of a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Anant Sadashiv Chandwandkar v. District Judge and Disciplinary Authority, District Court, Thane, and Ors., : (1997)3BOMLR545 as it was contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Anant Sadashiv Chandwandkar does not lay down correct law, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Chander v. Union of India and Ors., : (1986)IILLJ334SC has not been properly understood and correctly applied by the Division Bench.2. Before we advert to the question raised in the Petition, few relevant facts may be stated :--On August 10, 1990, the petitioner was appointed as Peon by the District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, respondent No. 1 herein, after following due process of selection. It was the case of the petitioner that he was duly elected as the President of Class-TV Employees Association in the District Court. As the President of the Association, he...
Tag this Judgment!Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Narayan Atmaram Sawant a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR33; [2002(95)FLR544]; 2002(3)MhLj732
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel of all the parties.2. Rule. To be heard forthwith by consent of the parties as the petition can be disposed of at this stage itself.3. The petitioner company is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and Order dated 25-2-2002 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court in Complaint ULP NO. 1087 of 1996 filed by 10 employees of the petitioner company, respondent Nos. 1 to 10 herein, under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU & PULP Act). It is held by the learned Member of the Industrial Court that the petitioner company has engaged in an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act and has directed it to cease permanently from continuing to engage in the unfair labour practice and directed to pay the arrears of wages and benefits to be calculated in the terms of the settlement dated 30...
Tag this Judgment!Air India Limited Vs. Anil R. Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ665Bom
1. This appeal is directed against the common judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 1523 of 1997 and Writ Petition No. 1479 of 1999 by which the order of the National Industrial Tribunal granting approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for disposal in terms of the directions contained in the said judgment and order within six months.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent workman was employed as Foremen with appellant Air India. A charge sheet was served on the respondent on February 1, 1996. The relevant portion of the charge sheet reads as under:'You were roistered for duty in the morning shift from 06.00 hrs to 14.30 hrs on February 1, 1996, in LMD and NIPTC, Shahar. It has been reported that although you did not report for duty on February 1, 1996..... you entered the company premises on February 1, 1996 and instigated other emp...
Tag this Judgment!Transport Corporation of India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Maharashtra Rajya Mat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ835Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. These Petitions are directed against the Award of the Industrial Tribunal granting a wage rise to the workmen employed with the Petitioners who are road transporters. The Union representing the workmen employed with employers who had business in road transportation raised a dispute for change in their service conditions. The All India Transport Employees Association raised the dispute relating to general demands including wage scales, dearness allowance and transfer of employees employed with transporters which have establishments all over India. This dispute was referred for adjudication by the Appropriate Government on August 12, 1981 under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Reference was made in respect of Prakash Roadlines Private Limited and 258 other employers. By a corrigendum issued on February 25, 1982, the Government included 116 more employers in the Reference. An Award was made by the Industrial Tribunal on November 12, 1986. This A...
Tag this Judgment!Godrej Industries Ltd. Vs. D.G. Ahire and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR65
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of a variety of cosmetics and toilet preparations including liquid hair dyes amongst others products. Respondent No. 1 to this petition is the then Assistant Collector of Central Excise functioning under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 ('the Act' for short) whose notices and decision of the year 1983 holding one of the products of the petitioners, namely hair-dyes to be hair lotions under Tariff Item No. 14-F of the First Schedule to the Act as it then existed (and consequent demands of duty) are under challenge in this writ petition. Respondent No. 2 is the Union of India.2. Mr. Shroff appears for the petitioner and Mr. Sethna appears for the respondents.3. Brief facts of the dispute Cosmetics and toilet preparations are liable to excise duty under Tariff Item 14-F. This item, as it stood prior to 1st April, 1985, had a particular wording and the said wording has been changed subsequent to 1...
Tag this Judgment!South Seas Distilleries and Breweries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Deepak R. Pat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR167
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Considering the issue involved, heard forthwith,2. The petitioners by the present Petition impugn the order dated 14th January, 2000 in Miscellaneous Application No. (IDA)/37 of 1999. That was an application to set aside the ex parte award dated 3rd May, 1999 passed in Reference IDA No. 172 of 1998. The petitioners also by the present Petition impugn the ex parte award dated 3rd May, 1999.3. A few facts are set out which will be relevant for the purpose of effectively deciding the issues that have been raised in the present petition. The case of the petitioners is that they were granted license to sell country liquor through its retail outlet 'Waspan Wines' situated at Kashimira Road, District Thane. The respondent No. 1 was employed there. On 12th February, 1997 the respondent No. 1 vanished from his duties. It is the case of the petitioners that this was on account of improper dealings and fraud committed by the respondent No. 1. It is their further case that...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›