Mumbai Court July 2002 Judgments
Geeta Bright Bar Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)(105)LC634Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This bunch of appeals has been filed by the appellants against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V by the Order-in-Original dated 21.6.2000 wherein the adjudicating authority has held that the process of conversion of M.S. rounds into M.S. bright bars by the process of cold drawing amounted to manufacture.2. The assessee, Geeta Bright Bar Works Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the activity of drawing M.S. rounds into bright bars falling under Chapter sub-heading 7214.90. In the same premises, another firm namely Geeta Corporation owned by the appellant in Appeal E3227/00 carried out process of drawing, cutting and polishing. The department issued a show cause notice dated 26.3.1999 alleging that the assessee has manufactured and cleared certain quantity of bright bars and with an intent to evade excise duty. Notices were also issued to the other appellants, proposing to impose penalties. The adjudicating authority, after looking into the replies as well as the subm...
Tag this Judgment!Pizza Hut International Llc and Vs. Pizza Hut India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR589; 2003(26)PTC208(Bom)
ORDERS.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The Plaintiffs have filed this suit torestrain the Defendant from using the mark' PIZZAHUT' or any other mark similar thereto as part ofits corporate name/trading style and from using,upon or in relation to any business relating torestaurants and food products the said mark or thePIZZA HUT' logo or any other mark/logo similarthereto and from infringing the Plaintiffsstatutory rights in the PIZZA HUT logo/PIZZA HUTmark which are either registered or pendingregistration. The Plaintiffs have also claimed aperpetual order and injunction restraining theDefendant from using the said mark and logo in anymanner in relation to any business or foodproducts sold/served by the Defendant so as topass off or enable others to pass off the saidgoods/business as and for that of the Plaintiffs.The Plaintiffs have further prayed that theDefendant be directed to change its corporatename/trading style so that the mark PIZZA HUT doesnot form a part thereof. Finally the Plaintiffshav...
Tag this Judgment!ipca Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Savita Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR696; 2002(4)MhLj407
ORDERS.J. Vaziftdar, J.1. The Plaintiff filed this suit to restrain theDefendant from infringing its copyright in respect ofits cartons, passing off its goods as the goods ofthe Plaintiff and for damages. The Plaintiff hasalso sought to restrain the Defendant from using, inrelation to any medicinal preparation, the labeland/or cartons so as to pass off its goods as thegoods of the Plaintiff. The Notice of Motion seeksinterim reliefs in terms of the aforesaid reliefs.2. The Plaintiffs case is that the Defendantmanufactured, sold and distributed pharmaceuticalproducts under the trade mark 'APPETONE' with a labeland in packing and cartons with art work identical tothat of the Plaintiff. Exhibits 'A1' 'A2' and 'A3'to the plaint are copies of the Plaintiffs label andpacking. On the said label is the Plaintiffs trademark 'APPETONE'. The trade mark and the packing usedby the Defendant are at Exhibits 'C1' 'C2' and 'C3'of the plaint. It is not necessary to describe thesame as the trade mark an...
Tag this Judgment!Nirav Securities (P.) Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Prabhuta Motiram Adhvaryu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR745; (2002)4BOMLR340; 2002(4)MhLj478
S.A. Bobde, J. 1. By this petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act') the Petitioner Nirav Securities P. Ltd., who are brokers have challenged the award dated 5-6-2000 rendered by an arbitrator under the bye-laws, rules and regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India. By the award, the petitioner has been directed to deliver certain shares specified therein to the respondent, their client. 2. The dispute between the petitioner broker and the respondent-constituent arose as follows : The petitioner entered into certain transactions on behalf of the Respondent and certain other members of the Respondent's family. (a) It appears that the Respondent had purchased 500 shares of M.T.N.L. on 13-10-1998. The Petitioner was to deliver the shares on 21st October, 1998 being the date of settlement. 3. Apparently, the petitioner failed to deliver the shares under the transaction (a) on the date of settlement, i.e., 21-10-1998. 4. On 24-11-1998 one Ke...
Tag this Judgment!PravIn Chhannalal Shah and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR383; 2003(1)BomCR612; 2002(4)MhLj835
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition the petitioners have challenged the Government Notification No. TPS, 1899/606/CR139/99/UD-13, dated 27-6-2000 as ultra vires the provisions of Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts giving rise to the present petition stated briefly are that the petitioners own certain lands in the precincts of Pune Corporation. On 5-2-1987 revised final development plan was made by Pune Municipal Corporation to which sanction was duly accorded by the State Government under Section 31 of the Act. Thereafter the Government of Maharashtra directed Pune Municipal Corporation under Section 37(1) of the Act to publish the notification showing certain lands in village Ghorpadi in the map changing them from the zone of agricultural to zone of residential lands. Since the petitioners were not affected by this order under Section 37(1) no action was taken by the petitioners. Thereafter on 27-6-2000 the Go...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Kumar Apparel Industries and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom128; 2002(4)ALLMR682; 2003(1)BomCR335; 2002(4)MhLj909
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the plaintiffs for setting aside an order passed by this Court purporting to dismiss the suit for non-prosecution.2. On 29th November, 2001 this suit appeared on the daily board for framing Issues. The advocate for the plaintiffs appeared before the Court. He, however, stated that he is not ready to go on with the matter. The Court did not find any valid reason for his saying so. The learned single Judge therefore dismissed the suit for non-prosecution.3. The plaintiffs applied for restoration of the suit under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as under:--9. Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit.-- (1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under Rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non...
Tag this Judgment!Kisan Devka Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)15; 2003BomCR(Cri)170; 2002(4)MhLj608
Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. We have heard Mrs. Shobha Gopal learned advocate appointed amicus curiae for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. By consent, matter is finally heard at the admission stage itself. Paper books are dispensed with.2. The appellant has preferred this appeal through jail. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment in Sessions Case No. 100 of 1999 by judgment and order dated 11th July, 2001 by the ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane.3. In this appeal, the appellant has prayed for re-trial. The contention of the appellant is that he was not provided legal aid for his defence and the entire trial was completed in the absence of any defence advocate who was representing the appellant.4. We have also perused the entire record and proceedings of the present appeal. On perusal of the record, the facts which are revealed are as under:That the appellant-accused was arre...
Tag this Judgment!Automotive Research Association of India and anr. Vs. State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR423; 2003(1)BomCR278; 2003(1)MhLj604
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the Petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Minister of State for Urban Development Shri Raj K. Purohit on several grounds including the ground of mala fides of the Respondent No. 9 i.e. the concerned minister.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition necessary for adjudication are that one Dnyanoba Baban Mokate was owner of certain lands. After theUrban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 came into operation in the State of Maharashtra, proceedings were commenced for determining surplus urban land held by the holder Baban Mokate. The proceedings ultimately culminated in land survey No. 54(5) and 54(7) which were declared as surplus under Section 8(4) of the same Act. The application made by Baban Mokate under Section 20 for exemption of his land from the provisions of the Ceiling Act was also rejected on 31-3-1977. The land therefore vested in the State of Maharashtra as provided by the Ceiling Act.3. On 25-4-1984 Cabinet Su...
Tag this Judgment!Pratapsing Ganpatrao Kadam Vs. Maruti Raghunath Todkar (through L.R's. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom11
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Though ad interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (d) was granted on 3rd July, 2002 and notice was issued, there is no formal order admitting the review petition. Admitted, by consent heard forthwith.2. The present application for review is filed against the order dated 1st February. 2001. The respondents who were the plaintiff before the trial Court had filed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The suit came to be dismissed. That suit was filed beyond the period prescribed by Section 6 for instituting a suit for possession. The respondents before this Court contend, that they had earlier initiated proceedings by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. That petition was not entertained by this Court on the ground that there were disputed questions of fact. However, while disposing of the writ petition, this Court observed that petitioners were at liberty to take such other legal steps as are advised. It is based on this order, th...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Bahadur Motilal and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR429; 2003(1)BomCR251
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the sanction granted by the Pune Municipal Corporation to certain development plans submitted by respondent No. 7.2. The petitioner is a textile mill which was declared as SICK unit by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and steps were taken for rehabilitation and revival of the unit. The company i.e. the petitioner owned certain properties bearing Final Plot Nos. 100 and 101 of T.P. Scheme (Final) Sangamwadi, Pune in all measuring 1.02 lakh sq. mtrs. (approximately) situated at Kennedy Road, Pune city within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation. Therefore in July 1996 the Board directed the petitioner company to undertake development of surplus assets as part of the rehabilitation scheme so that the company can be brought out of the debts to be paid to some extent. Permission therefore was granted to develop upto the extent of 2 lakhs of sq.fts. of the land from out of the above said plots. This...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »