Mumbai Court July 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.
Rhodia Ltd. and ors. Vs. Neon Laboratories Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom502; 2003(1)BomCR140; 2003(1)MhLj373
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1.This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the order dated March 19, 2002 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Palghat below Exh. 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 2002. This special Civil Suit has been filed by the Respondent for declaration and specific performance and consequential reliefs against the Applicants. The Applicants Nos. 1 and 3 are the English Public Limited Companies incorporated under the English Law. Whereas, the Applicant No. 2 is an Indian Company and having its office at Mumbai; and whereas, the Respondent Company is incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mumbai. The Respondent claims that it is engaged in the business of manufacture, sale, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products. The Respondent has its manufacturing facilities located at various places, including at Palghat. By a 'Distribution Agreement' dated August 1, 1997, the parties agreed to gi...
Transasia Bio-medicals Ltd. Vs. Revijay Clinical Laboratory and Hospit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom331; 2002(4)ALLMR230; 2002(5)BomCR1; (2002)4BOMLR230; 2003(1)MhLj757
F.I. Rebello, J.1. In answer to the summons for judgment, defendants have raised a plea that no permission was taken under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and consequently this Court will have no jurisdiction to hear, decide and grant reliefs as prayed for. On the other hand on behalf of plaintiffs their learned counsel points out that in fact leave had been sought for. Leave however was not granted. It was thought that leave would not be required considering the clause in the invoice conferring jurisdiction on this Court. In A. B. C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd and Anr. v. A. P. Agencies, Salem, : [1989]2SCR1a , the Apex Court has laid down the law that when the cause of action arises partly within the jurisdiction of two Courts, the clause in the contract conferring jurisdiction on one of the Courts and excluding jurisdiction on the other is legal. In other words parties to the contract under these circumstances can agree to confer jurisdiction on one of the two Courts. Under these circumstanc...
Shri Yogesh Dattaram Pathak Vs. Shri Shrikrishna Shriram Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)MhLj684
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India, takes exception to theorder passed by the Additional District Judge,Pune dated December 31, 1990 in Civil AppealNo. 566 of 1988. The premises in question consistof four rooms situate at Survey No. 1418/BSadashiv Peth, Pune-30. The Respondent is themonthly tenant in respect of the suit premises.The suit building was originally owned by thejoint family of which the Petitioner was acoparcener. The said property was partitionedsome time in 1976 and, the suit premises came tothe share of the Petitioner, whereas the portionof that property bearing property No. 1418A wentto the share of the Petitioner's brother, Ajay.Necessary entries have been incorporated in therelevant revenue records and City Survey recordin that behalf, in 1979. At the relevant time,however, petitioner was minor and the suitproperty was managed by his father as hisguardian. When the Petitioner became major in1985, he started managin...
Benard Chapanga Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)121
J.G. Chitre, J. 1. The appellant is assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the Additional Sessions Judge Special Judge in Special Case No. 15 of 1995, for offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (N.D.P.S. Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 Lacs, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. By the said judgment the learned trial Judge had also convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 23 of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 lacs in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Likewise, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant for committing the offences punishable under Sections 22, 23 and 28 r/w Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprison...
Naval N. Nagarnaik and ors. Vs. Forest Development Corporation of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR86; 2003(1)BomCR74
P.S. Brahme, J.1. Both these petitions are disposed by this common judgment as in both the petitions challenge is to the promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer by the respondent, Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited. 2. The facts which are necessary to decide the controversy involved in these petitions are stated as under: The respondent, Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, completely owned by the State of Maharashtra. Initially the State of Maharashtra established Forest Development Board in 1969 as a major step to convert large number of blocks of mixed forest into valuable teak forests. All the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2503 of 1986 started their service in the Forest Development Board, in that, the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 were erstwhile retrenched employees of the State of Maharashtra and as such they were accommodated as Junior Accountants in the Forest Develop...
Rameshwar Dadaji Suryawanshi Vs. Zilla Parishad, Nagpur Through Its Ch ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR696; 2003(1)BomCR195
P.S. Brahme, J.1. The petitioner-Rameshwar Dadaji Suryawanshi has filed this writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the orders passed by the second respondent namely Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and the subsequent order passed by the respondent No. 1, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. The respondent No. 2 Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur by his order cancelled the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Hinganghat and the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur by his order dated 19-2-1987 terminated the services of the petitioner. In this petition the petitioner is seeking direction to quash and set aside these orders and further declaration that the petitioner is in continuous service as Headmaster of Zilla Parishad, High School.2. In this petition on 17-3-1987 Rule came to be issued and there was ad interim stay in terms of prayer Clause 'C' of the petition whereby the effect, execution and operation of the impugned orders came...
Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. Suryakant Pandurang Dharwad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR7; [2002(95)FLR559]; 2002(4)MhLj56
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The Pune Municipal Corporation has challenged the common order dated 25-1-1994 passed by the Labour Court in the applications filed by various employees, individually, as reflected in the title of the common order, under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming wages for the period for the days i.e. 22nd March, 1986, 23rd March, 1986, 26th March, 1986 and 28th March, 1986 at double the rate as over time wages for the work done on those days. According to the employees, those days were weekly holidays for them but they had worked on those days and, therefore, they were entitled to get wages at double the rate. The employees have given computation of the total claim which is mentioned in the annexure to the impugned order on page 33 of the paper book. The total number of claimants is 161 who have claimed overtime wages for the aforesaid days. The respondent herein is one of them. The petitioners filed their written statement to oppose the claims of ...
Anil Vasantrao Shirpurkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR323; 2003(2)BomCR205; [2003(96)FLR951]; (2003)ILLJ275Bom
C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Sonawane, learned A.G.P. for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Rao learned counsel for respondent 3 appear and waive service of notice of rule. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court as an order was passed against him terminating the services. The petitioner was granted caste certificate as belonged to Dhoba (ST) on 17th December, 1991. On the basis of said certificate, the petitioner obtained job with Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation respondent 3 herein as a Pharmacist on 9th of August, 1994. The services of the petitioner were regularized on 8th of August, 1996, as he had successfully completed his probation period of two years. Thereafter also, nothing was done by the respondents. It was stated that only on 1st July, 2001 i.e. after the petitioner completed about seven years of service, it was alleged that the petitioner did not belong to Scheduled Tribe and...
Badrinarayan S/O Raghunath Sharma Vs. Suresh Nathamal Gothawal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MhLj522
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith for hearing by mutual consent.2. Order passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, on 19-3-2001 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 99/2000 is being challenged by original plaintiff.3. Regular Civil Suit No. 228/1996 was filed by present revision petitioner against present respondent for possession of rented premises under the provisionsof Bombay Rent Act. The suit was decreed by judgment and order dated 16-3-1998 by Civil Judge (J.D.). Bhusawal. By Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 17/1998, respondent/defendant applied under Order 9, Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the judgment and decree passed on 16-3-1998 in the said suit. Second Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate (F.C.). Bhusawal, by his order dated 18-9-2000 dismissed the application observing that the said judgment and decree was passed under Order 8, Rule 5(2) of Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore,...
Namdeo S/O Raoji Yerme Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the P.S.O.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)212; (2002)104BOMLR29
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for the murder of his wife under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had examined five witnesses in support of the charge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 10.4.1997. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer further R. I. for three months. The appellant challenges his conviction and sentence imposed on him.2. Learned Advocate Mrs. Jaishree Yangal was appointed in the Legal Aid Scheme to argue the matter on behalf of the appellant and learned A. P. P. Shri Mirza on behalf of the State.3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant had married deceased about five six months prior to the incident in question and on the date of the incident the appellant insisted that the deceased should come alo...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »