Mumbai Court July 2002 Judgments
Walji Alias Walya Dashrath Johny Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4284
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Though Shri Sanghani had last time submitted before this Court that as the papers have been returned to the relatives of the appellant, he was unable to argue. Today, he submitted that the papers have been collected by him from the department as asked by this Court and he is arguing for the appellant.2. Shri Sanghani vehemently submitted that in the present case there is absolutely no evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 367, 387, 452 of Indian Penal Code and Section 37 of Arms Act. He pointed out that the evidence of P.W. 1 complainant Rajendra is at variance from the evidence of his associates Sailani and therefore, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that P.W. 1 Rajendra was kidnapped by the appellant Walji alias Walya and his associate. At this juncture he made a reference to the evidence of A.P.I. Naik also. Mrs. Kejriwal A.P.P. appearing for the prosecution submitted vehemently that there is...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramesh Raghavji Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)451; I(2003)DMC197
A.S. Aguiar, J.1. In this appeal, the State has impugned the order dated 27th January, 1987 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune acquitting all the accused of the offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('I.P.C.' for short) and acquitting accused No. 1 Ramesh Shah of the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. The learned trial Judge has based his order of acquittal on the ground that the prosecution evidence on record is insufficient, discrepant and not credible enough to bring home the guilt to the accused. All the accused have been charged under Section 498A read with Section 34 of I.P.C. while accused No. 1, husband of the victim, has been separately charged under Section 307 of I.P.C.2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that; The complainant Smt. Rashila Shah married the accused No. 1 Ramesh Shah in the year 1983. After the marriage, the complainant stayed in the matrimonial house with the accused persons. For some time, her m...
Tag this Judgment!Deshmukh S.M. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ76CAT
1. The issues and facts in all these 3 O.As. are identical and the Advocates for both the applicants and respondents are also same, so by mutual consent we have heard them together and have proceeded to pass a common order.2. The applicants have approached this Tribunal against the orders dated 27.12.2000 and 8.11.2001 of the Controller of Defence Accounts (Officers) Pune i. e. Respondent No. 3, whereby claim of the applicants for extending the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 with effect from either from the date of their initial appointment or from 1.1.1986 whichever is later has been rejected. All the applicants No. 1 to 14 are working as Data Entry Operators, Grade 'B' (in shortDEO Gr. B) in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000. The applicants No. 15 to 26 are working as Data Entry Operators Grade. 'C' (in short DEO Gr. 'C') in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and applicant No. 27 is working as Sr. Auditor in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000 in the office of Controller of Defence Accounts ...
Tag this Judgment!Dcw Home Products Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR751; (2002)4BOMLR468; 2002(4)MhLj810
1. This petition under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', is against an order dated 10-2-1998 by which the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks has cancelled certificate of registration of the label mark 'CAPTAIN COOK' dated 15-7-1996.2. The facts are as follows :--The petitioner DCW Home Products Ltd. assigned the trade mark to International Best Foods Ltd. on 29-1-1998. International Best Foods Ltd. merged with Hindustan Lever Ltd. by an order dated 26-9-2001 and applied for registration of their trade mark CAPTAIN COOK in class 35 in respect of goods which reads as iodised salt.3. On 15-7-1996 the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks issued a certificate of registration of the Trade Marks to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 22-12-1995 the respondent No. 2 Vishal Salt Industries through their Advocate issued a notice to the Deputy Registrar objecting to registration of the trade mark on the ground that they had lodged a notice of oppos...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwandas G. Agrawal Vs. Brijwasi Dughdhalaya Private Limited and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR796; (2002)4BOMLR335
S.A. Bobde, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 107 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' read with Sections 46 and 56 thereof for rectification of the register. The petitioner seeks cancellation of the 1st respondent's trade marks granted as follows :-- Trademark No.Grantedby Cert. dated.34694931-8-198234694830-4-198334695230-1-198736870314-6-1991Each of the above Trade Marks contain the word Brijwasi which is the cause of the dispute. 2. This petition for rectification is made directly to this Court on 27-3-2001. The only question before me is whether this petition is barred by limitation. 3. Mr. Kane, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that in this case time must be reckoned from the date of knowledge of registration of the respondent No. 1's trade mark i.e. 1-4-1985. According to the learned counsel forthe respondent No. 1, the petitioner must be taken to have known the fact that the respondent No. 1 has the trade mark...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Modistone Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR117; II(2003)BC411; (2003)1BOMLR3; 2003(1)MhLj98
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The Register of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction addressed a letter dated 11-5-2001 to the Registrar of this Court. In that letter, it is set out that in case No. 32 of 1998, the applicant company being M/s. Modistone Ltd. an enquiry was conducted under Section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 in accordance with the procedure laid down in the said Act. The Bench of B.I.F.R. has recorded an opinion under Section 20(1) of the Act that it is just and equitable that M/s. Modistone Ltd. should be wound up and has directed the registrar to forward the aforesaid opinion of the Board to this Court (wrongly named as High Court of Maharashtra) for further action under law. On receipt of the papers, matter was placed before the learned Company Judge who by his order of 24-1-2002 directed the petition to be registered as winding up petition. The petition was also accepted. The order of the learned Judge discloses that an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. G.L. Hotels Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR790; [2003(96)FLR910]; 2002(4)MhLj388
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The Maharashtra General Kamgar Union is the Petitioner aggrieved by the impugned award dated 6th June 1994 in Reference IDA No. 221 of 1980 made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) Bombay under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a demand of reinstatement of six workmen with full backwages and continuity of service. 2. It appears that initially the petitioner union had espoused, the cause of six workmen who were dismissed from employment by the respondent company for alleged various multiple acts of misconduct levelled against them. It appears that during the pendency of the litigation before the Labour Court and this Court, out of six workmen five workmen have settled their claim. In the present petition, we are concerned only with one workman i.e. C.D. Jose. 3. The petitioner union filed its statement of claim before the Labour Court justifying its demand for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity ofse...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Maya Kishore Mohnani Vs. Thakurdas Khanchand Chawla and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR692; I(2003)BC349
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The suit as filed is based on the bill of exchange dated 22.5.1996. The suit was lodged on 22.11.1999. Defendant No. 1 is sued as drawer of the bill and defendant No. 2 as acceptor. The drawer has waived notice of dishonour. The case of the plaintiff is that though the amount was demanded the defendants have failed and neglected to pay the amount or part thereof and consequently the suit.Defendant No. 1 has expired. His Legal heirs are not brought on record, though defendant No. 2 is one of the L.Rs. Summons for Judgment, therefore, to be heard and disposed of insofar as defendant No. 2 alone is concerned.In answer to the Summons for Judgment, no reply has been filed on behalf of the defendants. Learned Counsel for the defendant, however, contends that they are entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit based on the pleadings itself as the suit is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. This is a case of a bill of exchange payable on demand.On the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendrakumar Ranjit Singh Chaudhari Vs. Western Coalfield Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR686; 2003(1)BomCR176; (2003)IILLJ430Bom
R.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court through this petition challenging the order, dated May 25, 1993, whereby the respondent-management informed the petitioner that in pursuance of Clause 12.4(iv) of Chap.XII of Common Coal Cadre, the petitioner has deemed to have left the services of the company on his own accord with effect from the date he was due to return to work. The clear meaning of his letter is that according to the respondent-management the petitioner has abandoned the services and since then he was no more in the service of the respondent-management. 2. The relevant facts in nut shell and that too just for the decision of the present petition are as under: The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer with the respondent No. 1 Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the company for the sake of brevity as the Western Coalfields Ltd., is already registered under the Companies Act). By passage of time, the petitioner was promoted to...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Adiwasi Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit Through I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR349
B.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard.2. The respondent, who is the original plaintiff, filed Special Civil Suit No. 105 of 1990 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the Civil Judge, Senior Division. Nandurbar in the year 1990. The suit summons was served on the Regional Manager of the applicant on 21.3.1991. He did not appear in the Court. Therefore, the matter proceededex parte against the applicant-original defendant and ultimately, decree came to be passed on 23.2.1995. The applicant defendant filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code on 16.12.1995 for setting aside theex parte decree. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court on 13.11.1998. The rejection order was carried in revision. The High Court rejected the Civil Revision Application on 4.2.1992. After rejection of the Civil Revision Application, the original defendant has filed First Appeal along with the application for condonation of dela...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »