Mumbai Court September 2004 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Oswald Anthony Athayde and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-2004
Reported in: 2005ACJ82
Abhay S. Oka, J.1. The appellant Union of India has taken exception to the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 12.1.1990 in a claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.2. The case of the respondent No. 1 in the claim petition is that he suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 27.7.1987. The case of the respondent No. 1 was that he was travelling in an Ambassador car which was proceeding from Mahim to Sahar Airport. The accident took place early in the morning when the traffic signals were not operating. When his car came near the junction of Mahim Causeway and Western Express Highway and when he was taking right turn towards Western Express Highway, a bus owned by the Department of Atomic Energy of the appellant Union of India came from Bandra side and front side of the bus dashed against the left side of the car in which respondent No. 1 was travelling. Respondent No. 1 suffered vario...
Atv Projects India Ltd. Vs. Office of the Regional Provident Fund Comm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR242; [2005(105)FLR992]; (2005)ILLJ1046Bom; 2005(1)MhLj791
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioners challenge the show cause notice dated 16-10-2001 issued by the Recovery Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation under Section 8B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'. The challenge is mainly on the ground that the authorities under the said Act, unless they comply with the W. P. No. 3059 of 2001 decided on 1-9-2004. (O.O.C.J., Bombay) provisions of law as stipulated under Section 8G of the said Act, cannot proceed to arrest the petitioners for non-payment of the amount in terms of the recovery certificate stated to have been issued under the said Act.3. The facts not in dispute and relevant for the decision are that on account of failure on the part of the petitioners to discharge their provident fund liability, a recovery certificate came to be issued against the petitioners and for the...
Laxman R. Vajage Vs. Collector of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR237; 2005(1)MhLj487
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners challenge the orders passed by the respondents rejecting the applications for revalidation of their liquor permits - one in relation to country liquor, namely Licence CL-III and another in relation to Indian made foreign liquor in the form of FL-II being totally arbitrary one and in contravention of the provisions of law.3. The undisputed facts in both the petitions are that the applications for revalidation of the liquor licences of the petitioners, like many other applicants, during the relevant time, were rejected on the ground that they were filed beyond the cut-off date fixed by the Government for filing such application. It is the case of the respondents that the Government from time to time pursuant to the circulars issued had fixed the cut-off date for the purpose of filing applications for...
Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Vs. Meher Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj1132
ORDERV.C. Daga, J. 1. The applicant/appellant has filed this first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27th February, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Palghar, Dist. Thane, restraining the applicant/ appellant/ original defendant by perpetual order of injunction from in any manner infringing respondents/ plaintiffs' copyright i.e. original artistic work, namely, the label PRINCE SANTRA by copying or reproducing the same or publishing or using the aforesaid original artistic work and label or any colourable imitation thereof by using the label of No. 1 TANGO SANTRA and also granting ancillary reliefs in terms of impugned order. The Facts :2. The facts of the case leading to the impugned Judgment and decree are that the appellant is carrying on business, inter alia; as manufacturers of country liquor under various trade labels. Respondent No. 1 is also carrying on business of manufacturing country liquor having its factory at village Aswa, taluka Dahanu, district- T...
National Textile Corporation (S.M.) Ltd. Vs. Gangaram Atmaram Vishwasr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ1034Bom
F.I. Rebello, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated July 31, 1995 of the learned single Judge which allowed the petition filed by the respondent workman and held that the respondent workman was entitled to reinstatement as a permanent employee. The order of the Industrial Court dated October 22, 1993 dismissing the complaint, therefore, was set aside.2. At the hearing of this appeal on behalf of the appellant learned counsel contends that there is a settlement existing between the recognised union and the respondent. That settlement provides for the number of permanent workers to be engaged in a particular department. Once a settlement was existing merely because thereafter additional Model Standing Orders were notified would be of no consequence. In this case more specifically Model Standing Order 4-C reads as under:'A badli or temporary operative which had put in 240 days uninterrupted service in the aggregate in any other undertaking during the period of preceding twelve...
Pannalal Tilokchand Khedkar Vs. Rukhabsao Nathusao JaIn and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR446; 2005(3)MhLj484
Rohee K.J., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, respondent No. 1 in person and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 in both the Letters Patent Appeal.2. The appellant/original non-applicant No. 2 preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 115 of 1996 against the judgment dated 5-9-1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 177 of 1984, by which M.C.A. No. 249 of 1983 was remanded to the District Court for fresh consideration and decision. Letters Patent Appeal No. 56 of 1998 has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 23-3-1998 passed by the Single Judge in First Appeal No. 476 of 1997 directing that the First Appeal be heard with Letters Patent Appeal No. 115 of 1996.3. The facts which are relevant for the purposes of the present appeal are that respondent No. 1/original applicant preferred an application under Section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as C.N.C. Act for brevity) for mandatory injunct...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›