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.
Galaxy Entertainment and anr. Vs. Cc (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC982Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Galaxy Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. imported in October 1998, goods comprising a 20 lane bowling alley from its manufacturer AMF Bowling Inc., USA (hereinafter AMF). In the bill of entry that it filed in the Mumbai Custom House in October 1998, it declared for the goods an assessable value of Rs. 1,31,25,140/-based on the invoice price of US$ 303,981/-. The assessing officer after conducting some enquiries into the matter, accepted the value declared by the importer. Some sports shoes imported along with the alley were found by him to be unauthorised and ordered by appropriate authority to be confiscated with an option to redeem on payment of fine. Penalty was also imposed with regard to these goods. The goods were cleared.2. Subsequently, in January of the next year, the officers of the Marine & Preventive Wing of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) searched the premises of the importer and others connected with the goods and seized the bowling alley. Statements of var...
Smt. Yashodabai Ganesh Naik Gaunekar (Deceased), Through Her Legal Rep ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom77; 2003(1)BomCR346; 2002(3)MhLj801
V.C. Daga, J.1. This case affords a further illustration, iffurther illustrations are required, of the confusion ofour law and how the decree-holder had to suffer at thehands of the Court. The Executing Court disposed ofexecution proceedings in a very casual and cursory manner,taking a thoroughly untenable and unjust view notpalatable to any judicial mind.BRIEF FACTS 2. The brief narration of facts will be usefulfor correct appreciation of the issues involved in thiscase.3. The source of this revision petition is theOrder dated 28th June, 2000, passed by the Civil Judge,Senior Division, Ponda, in Execution ApplicationNo.7/99/A, arising out of execution of decree passed inRegular Civil Suit No.36/92, whereunder a decree forpermanent injunction restraining the defendant, hisrelations, his servants and agents from interfering withthe suit property bearing survey no.206/4, known as'DAIMODEM', situated at Bandora was passed.4. It appears that the decree-holder, uponinitiation of the executi...
Balwant P. Doshi Vs. Shantaben Dhirajlal Shah and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR388; 2003(2)BomCR190; 2002(4)MhLj473
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay, Bandra Bench dated August 30, 1993 in Appeal No. 158 of 1991 in RAE Suit No. 76/207 of 1986. Briefly stated, the respondent No. 1 is the landlady in respect of residential premises situated on the first floor of Nemi Building, 83, Nutan Laxmi Co-op. Hsg. Scy. Ltd., J.V.P.D., Mumbai 400056. The suit building was constructed in the year 1966-67. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 inducted respondent No. 2 as a tenant on monthly basis. At the relevant time the respondent No. 1 was staying with her elder son at Sion. The premises at Sion were rented premises admeasuring 750 sq.ft. This fact has been established from the record, whereas the suit premises admeasure 1200 sq.ft. with 3 bed rooms, hall and kitchen. According to the respondent No. 1, since her requirement was growing because of the increase in the number of family member...
i.T.C. Limited Vs. Gtc Industries Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR317; (2003)1BOMLR136; 2002(4)MhLj441
S.A. Bobde, J. 1. This petition challenges the order dated 20th December 1994 by which the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks has dismissed the petitioners opposition and allowed the registration of the trade mark 'GUTSY' to the respondents in respect of the Cigarettes, tobacco, safety matches and smokers articles, in Class 34.2. On 5th September, 1985 the respondent No. 1 applied for the registration of the trade mark 'GUTSY'. On 1st December 1990 an advertisement was published. On 7th January 1991 the petitioner filed its opposition inter alia on the following ground that the trade mark 'GUTSY' is not registrable as it is neither distinctive nor capable of distinguishing and, therefore, does not satisfy the requirement of registrability as laid down by the Act. They further contended that the trade mark is a laudatory expression and there is nothing inherently distinctive in it nor is it capable of distinguishing the goods in respect of which it is proposed to be used from the other ...
Vithal Yeshwant Nalavade Deceased by His Lrs Anusaya Vithal Nalavade a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR68; 2003(2)BomCR157; 2003(1)MhLj208
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition by the tenant takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated November 19, 1988 in Revision Application No. MRT-NS-VI-8/87 (TEN-B-122/87). The short question that arises in the present case is : whether the landlord, who has already resorted to an action for possession of the land under Section 31 read with Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and which application has been decided in his favour, is competent to institute posterior action under Section 33B of the Act on the basis of certificate issued under Section 88C in his favour?2. The relevant facts for deciding the above question in this case are that, Section 88C certificate was issued in favour of the respondent No. 1 landlord on 12-1-1959. The respondent No. 1 had already instituted proceedings under Section 31 read with Section 29 of the Act for possession of the suit land which were d...
Maersk India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(156)ELT830(Bom)
1. Heard Mr. Bharucha for the petitioner, Mr. Rana appears for the respondent. This petition seeks to challenge various notification issued by the Respondent enhancing the amounts which are required to be paid by the petitioner who are running a Customs Freight Station under Section 45 of the Customs Act. The amounts are required towards the overtime payment. Inasmuch as various submissions were raised in this petition, a direction was given earlier to the Commissioner of Customs to hear the petitioner and then pass the reasoned order. The Commissioner of Customs has heard the petitioner and thereafter passed order on 27th March, 2002 which is a detailed over giving reasons and justifications for this demand of overtime payment. Mr. Bharucha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that. Firstly these officers are doing their duty and for that certain fixed contribution is made by the petitioner. The second submission of Mr. Bharucha is that there are persons engaged round...
Hemant Marotrao Sahare Vs. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Hi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR708; 2003(2)BomCR230
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Rule. By consent of parties rule made returnable forthwith.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing and setting aside the notification dated 10-6-2002, wherein it has been notified by the respondent No. 1 Board, that the performance of the petitioner in March, 2002 examination has been cancelled and the petitioner has been further debarred from appearing in October, 2002 examination. We have heard the parties and perused the written submission made on behalf of the respondent No. 1 Board. It is the case of the respondent that on 14-3-2002, the date on which the examination of Marathi paper was held, the petitioner has carried a chit from guide of Marathi subject at the examination centre, and the said chit was lying below the desk of the petitioner. The said chit was recovered during the examination, and it was found that the petitioner has signed on the chit.4. The respondent Board thereafter conducted an en...
institute of Mechanical Engineers (India) and ors. Vs. R.N. Engineer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR183; 2003(2)BomCR330
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Admit. Heard forthwith, by consent.2. The appellants challenge the order dated 6th April, 2002 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai dismissing the Notice of Motion No. 3573 of 2000 in Short Cause Suit No. 4945 of 2000. The notice of motion was sought to be taken out seeking relief of temporary injunction to restrain the respondent-defendant from holding out or acting as President of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India), a registered society under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as well as a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as 'the institution') and further from conveying any meeting of the general body of the institution, as also from holding an extra ordinary general meeting which was proposed to be held on 26th August, 2000 or on any other day and lastly from addressing and/or issuing any correspondence or circular as the President of the Institution.3. Pending the hearing and disposa...
Vithal Ramrao Ingale (Patil) Vs. Navalbai Digambar Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR650; 2002(6)BomCR507
N.V. Dabholkar, J. 1. Heard Advocate Shri S.S. Choudhary for petitioner.2. Revision petitioner-original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 24/1997 on the file of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tuljapur, takes an exception to the order dated 30-8-2001 passed by the learned Judge pertaining to a document, 'ancient document' produced before the trial Court. According to defendant, that is a document executed and registered by his adoptive father, while taking him in adoption on 8 Meher 1355 Fasli (i.e. some time in the year 1945-46 A.D.). 3. Even after obtaining say of the other side, the learned trial Judge has allowed the application partly. He has accepted the case of defendant revision petitioner that document is ancient document being more than 30 years old. He has also accepted that it came from proper custody, since it was in the custody of defendant, who claimed that he is the adopted son. Taking into consideration that the two conditions precedent for section 90 of Indian Evidenc...
Manik S/O Ramchandra Yadao Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR24
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant alongwith three others was tried for murder of Mahaduji Ramble under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also assault on others for which separate charge was framed besides other charges. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, by Judgment dated 21.2.97, convicted the appellant of the charge of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. He was acquitted of other charges. The other co-accused were acquitted of all the charges. The appellant challenges his conviction in this appeal.2. The prosecution case, as revealed from evidence on record, is that there was litigation pending between the deceased family and the family of the appellant and in that connection the son of the deceased alongwith his wife and his mother had gone to Washim Court on the previous day of the incident. In that case, statement of Vimal (P. W. 1), daughter of the deceased was recorded. The appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »