Mumbai Court June 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.
Harishchandra Shankar Thakur Vs. Rockey Joseph Rebello and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR99
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Heard both sides.2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay dated 31st January, 1985 in TEN:A: 275 of 1979. 3. Briefly stated the petitioner claims to be the brother of one Sunder Shankar Thakur, respondent No. 5 herein. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 5 had wrongfully surrendered the tenancy in respect of the suit land in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the landlords. This Court is really not concerned with the factual matrix of the matter, as the short question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is-whether in absence of a formal application for setting aside the abatement, and for condonation of delay in applying for setting aside the abatement accompanying the application for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased respondent in the proceedings which is unquestionably barred by time, can be entertained? As mentioned before...
Vitthal S/O Narayan Kangale and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR173
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellants alongwith three others, had been tried for the murder of Champat Ragho Nehare under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also tried for attempt to murder Ragho Pandurang Nehare and Pundlik Ragho Nehare under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, they were also charged and tried for causing grievous and simple hurt to Lalita Raghoji Nehare and Ku. Sunanda Raghoji Nehare under Sections 326, 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides this, they were also charged and tried for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 458 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had in all examined five witnesses in support of the charges. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal vide Judgment dt. 12.12.1997 found the appellants guilty of the charge of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced them to undergo life impri...
Shaikh Hanif S/O Shaikh Rahimtulla Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR620
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for murder of Sufi Mohmmad Hussain Ali under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant had pleaded not guilty and the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses in support of the charge. The prosecution evidence consisted of the First Information Report recorded by the Police Officer after obtaining a Certificate of Fitness from the Doctor which was treated as dying declaration; dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate; recovery of the blood stained knife at the instance of the appellant having blood stains of 'A' Group which was the blood group of deceased; recovery of the blood stained clothes on the person of the appellant which had blood stains of 'O' Group and non-explanation of the blood stains by the appellant on his clothes, as also medical evidence and other evidence on record. On the basis of this evidence, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence...
S.B. Vora and Co. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(105)LC590(Bombay)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the adjudication orders dated 28th, 29th & 30th September, 1988 (Exhibits A, B & C to the petition) wherein the Respondents have denied benefit of exemption Notification No. 75/84 on the ground that the Petitioners have not complied with the conditions set out in the said Notification and accordingly confirmed the demand at excise duty under the respective show cause notices issued to the Petitioners.2. Facts giving rise to the petition are as follows:The Petitioners manufacture products known as thinners and industrial solvents. For the manufacture of the said products, they require petroleum products like benzene, toluene, etc.3. By Notification No. 35/73 CE dated 1.3.1973 the Central Government permitted concessional rates of excise duty for benzene, toluene, etc. provided an Officer not below the rank of an Assistant Collector Central Excise is satisfied that the said items are intended for use inter alia as solv...
American Home Products Corporation and anr. Vs. Soul Marketing Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR479; 2002(4)BomCR426; 2002(3)MhLj673
P.V. Kakade, J. 1. The plaintiffs have filed this notice ofmotion seeking certain reliefs against thedefendants in the said suit wherein it is averredthat the plaintiffs are the Corporation incorporatedunder the Laws of the State of Delaware and havetheir principal place of business in United Statesof America. They are manufacturers of and dobusiness, inter-alia, in medicinal, pharmaceuticalpreparations, toilet preparations and cosmetics.The plaintiff No. 2 is a Limited Company incorporatedunder the Companies Act, 1956 and has its office atBombay, carrying on business of manufacture and saleof medicinal, pharmaceutical preparations, toiletpreparations and cosmetics.According to the plaintiffs, the 1stdefendants are distributors of and sell cosmeticproducts. The 2nd defendant is theManager/Principal Officer of the 1st defendants.The 3rd defendants are manufacturers of thecosmetics which are marketed by the 1st defendants.According to the plaintiffs, they areregistered proprietors in Ind...
The National Bicycle Corporation of India Limited, Bombay Vs. Gopal B. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR470; (2002)4BOMLR473; [2002(95)FLR751]; (2002)IIILLJ787Bom; 2002(2)MhLj850
Mhatre, J. 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgmentand order of the learned Single Judge upholding theAward of the Industrial Tribunal under which theRespondent workmen were directed to be reinstated bythe Appellant with continuity of service and back wagesfor the period after 15th October 1980 tillreinstatement.2. A few facts which are necessary for thedetermination of this Appeal are as follows :-The Respondents were employed with Hind CyclesLimited and worked there for almost twenty years.Their services came to be terminated without any noticeor wages in lieu of notice or any retrenchmentcompensation. Individual disputes were raised by theRespondent workmen which were referred for adjudicationbefore various Labour Courts. The Labour Courts madeAwards in these References setting aside the orders oftermination as they were void ab initio and inviolation of the provisions of Section 25F of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. During the pendency ofthe References, the Hind Cycles Li...
indchemic Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Naxpar Labs Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR431; 2002(3)MhLJ744
P.V. Kakade, J. 1. This notice of motion is moved by theplaintiff in the suit filed against the defendantsinter-alia seeking permanent injunction restrainingthe defendants from using to any medicinal orpharmaceutical preparations the impugned markCHERISH and/or any other which is identical and/ordeceptively similar Trade Mark so as to infringe theTrade Mark CHERI of the plaintiff registered underNo. 472197 dated 14.5.1987 in Class-5 in respect ofpharmaceutical preparations under the Trade Mark &Merchandise; Marks Act, 1958 and also to restrain thedefendants from passing off their goods as and forthe plaintiffs goods and for damages as well as forappointment of the Court Receiver and for interimand ad-interim reliefs as prayed for in the plaint.The plaintiff has stated that, it carrieson business of manufacturing and selling medicinaland pharmaceutical preparations. The 1st defendantalso carries on business of medicinal andpharmaceutical preparations. The 2nd defendant alsocarries on bu...
Super Steels Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: 2002LC492(Bombay); 2002(143)ELT504(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. In this petition, the Petitioners have challenged the validity of four show cause notices dated 2nd September 1986, 17th August 1987, 16th November 1987 and 23rd May 1988 wherein the Excise Authorities have purported to demand and recover the excise duty under the provisions of Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, being the short levy on the goods cleared by the Petitioners as per the approved price list during the periods as more particularly set out in each of the show cause notices.2. The facts relevant for the present petition are as follows :-The Petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm engaged in the manufacture, inter alia, of LPG Tanks. The said manufacturing activity was carried on by the Petitioners mostly on a job work basis, i.e. the Petitioners receive raw materials from their principals and manufacture the goods as per the prescribed specifications.3. On 17th March 1986, the Petitioners filed Classification List Nos. 1 and 2 in respe...
Wwi Cranes Limited Vs. Krishna Murthy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: 2002LC642(Bombay); 2002(143)ELT500(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Shroff for the Petitioner. Mr. Master appears for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 1(A)-CEGAT is a format Respondent.2. The Petitioner is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cranes. A Government of India Enterprise known as Fact Engineering and Design Organization (for short 'FEDO') desired to have manufactured and erected a ship unloader which is a kind of power crane for unloading the raw materials from bulk carriers. The said system was to have a capacity of 600 Tonnes Per Hour (TPH). It was imperative that along with the grab buckets, the system would include a track loader to act as a bulldozer to collect the materials concerned. The petitioner had filled in the necessary quotation as per the advertisement of FEDO on 18th February, 1982. The quotation given by the petitioner was accepted by FEDO. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for the import licence. The licence issued had a specific clause with respect to t...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas847(Bom)
A.B. Palkar, J.1. In this petition the petitioner challenges the order dated December 8, 1993, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, in Revision Application No. 68 of 1992. The revision application was filed by the contesting respondent M/s. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. and Shri Anirudha Mahdav Bhat, company secretary against the order of issuing process passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratnagiri, in Complaint No. 1243 of 1994. Process was issued and cognizance was taken of offence under Section 113(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956, on allegations of delay in issuing share certificates. The finding of the learned sessions judge was that the offence is punishable with fine only and the prosecution was barred by limitation. This is not disputed before me on the facts. It is not disputed that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation and there was no accompanying application for condonation of delay before the learned magistrate. In the absence of any r...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »