Mumbai Court March 2006 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.
Feroz Shabbar HussaIn for Himself and as the Only Son and Legal Repres ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Bom256; 2006(3)ALLMR668; 2006(3)BomCR613; 2006(4)MhLj387
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. By this petition, the Petitioner impugns the order dated 4th October, 2005 passed by the Minister for Revenue and Forests as a Revisional Authority under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (for short 'M.P.F. Act'). The Petitioner also seeks prohibitory injunction restraining Respondents to dispossess him from the agricultural land bearing Gat No. 46/1, admeasuring 2 Hectares 96 Ares situated at Village Barwai, Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad. 2. The land in question was originally held by one Narayan Govind Shete and bore survey No. 27, Hissa No.4. On 24th January, 1961 a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forests Act was issued and the landlord was called upon to show cause as to why the land be no declared as a private forest. The Petitioner claims to be legal representative of deceased Smt. Rubbabai Shabbar Hussein, who had acquired the land in question from the original holder, namely, Narayan Govind Shete. An application was...
Gtl Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar Sangh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR690; 2006(3)MhLj646
V.C. Daga, J. 1. This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 10-2-2006, passed below Ex. C. 17 in Reference (IT) No. 15 of 2004, by the Industrial Tribunal (Maharashtra), at Thane, refusing to remove from record discard additional written statement dated 4-4-2005 (Ex. CA-6) filed by the First Party contractor to the dispute.Facts :2. The brief facts noticed from the record are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of Process Outsourcing and Information Technology Services and Network Engineering.3. The respondent No. 1 is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.4. The respondent No. 2 is the proprietress of M/s Classic Enterprises, who was a contractor engaged by the petitioner for its house keeping requirements at Electronic Sadan No. IV, TTC Industrial Area, MIDC, Mhape, Navi Mumbai -400 701.5. The industrial dispute between the parties gave rise to the conciliation proceedings; which, ulti...
Pune Municipal Corporation and ors. Vs. Dhananjay Prabhakar Gokhale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR449; 2006(5)BomCR727; [2006(110)FLR959]; (2006)IIILLJ59Bom; 2006(4)MhLj66
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. The appellants challenge the order dated 29-11-2001 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3429 of 1995. By the impugned order the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 28-9-1994 of the Industrial Court, Pune. By the said order, the Industrial Court had allowed the complaint filed by the respondent under Item No. 6 of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter called as 'the said Act' and had directed the appellants to provide the benefits of permanency to the respondent with effect from 28-9-1987.2. It was the grievance of the respondent, along with other employees of the appellants, that he was appointed as daily wage workman during the period from 1983 to 1986 as a Bailer in the printing press of the appellant and that in spite of he having completed the period of continuous 240 days in servic...
Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (C.S.) Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR377; 2006(5)BomCR709; 2006(4)MhLj424
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri C.S. Samudra, the learned Counsel for the applicant, and Shri P.P. Kothari, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant.2. This revision is directed against the order of the Estate Officer dated 1-4-1991, whereby the applicant was evicted by the Estate Officer by exercising power under Section 5(1) of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Public Premises Act'), and directed to pay damages, as well as the order passed by the District Judge, Nagpur, under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act, whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant was dismissed.3. Shri Samudra, the learned Counsel for the applicant, contended that the non-applicant filed an application under Clauses 13(3)(ii)(vi) of The C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Order'). On 29-4-1988, the Rent Controller granted permission to issue quit notice to the applicant und...
Bharti Televentures Ltd. and anr. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Author ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR253; 2006(5)BomCR715; 2006(4)MhLj185
S.B. Mhase, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 29th October, 2005 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune in Appeal No. 52 of 2005 wherein the present petitioner was the appellant. The said appeal was preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 22nd June, 2005 passed by the Lower Authority in impounding proceeding bearing Case No. 7254 of 2005 wherein the appellants were directed to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs. 7,73,85,863/- and penalty of Rs. 4,38,36,226/- making a total to Rs. 12,12,22,080/-.3. The appellant was/is a licensee under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to set up and operate cellular mobile telephone services in the Mumbai circle. As part of the required infrastructure, the appellant was required to place and has placed various cellular telecommunication equipments/antennae on the roof tops of and other suitable locations on various buildings and sites in its ...
international Association of Lions Clubs Vs. National Association of I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(33)PTC79(Bom)
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present application has been initiated by the plaintiff inter alia for an injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner using the word 'Lion' or 'Lions' or 'Lioness' or 'Leo' or Leos or any other registered trade mark or service mark or association name of the plaintiffs or any other word mark identical with or deceptively similar to the character of the plaintiffs herein. Thus, by prayer (a) a passing off action has been initiated by the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from using the trade mark or trade name by using the aforesaid mark. By prayer (b) of the motion the plaintiffs are seeking in injunction restraining the defendants from using the said mark 'Lion' or 'Lions' or'Leo' or 'Leos' or any other registered mark either as domain name or and/or e-mail address or any part of their domain name or part of their e-mail address so as to pass off or likely to pass off and/or enable others to pass off the association of the defendants and/or their...
Holya Lasha Mahale and anr. Vs. Raghunath Holya Mahale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR506; 2006(44)MhLj80
S.B. Mhase, J.1. Heard. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of both parties.2. The petitioner is the original defendant from Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 1997 decided by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satana, District Nashik on October 23, 2002. It was an ex parte decree passed against the present petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said ex parte decree, the petitioners preferred an appeal. However, the said appeal was delayed by 529 days. Therefore, Civil Miscellaneous Application bearing No. 29 of 2004 was taken out by the petitioner for condonation of delay. The said application is dismissed by the IIIrd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Malegaon by judgment and order dated July 16, 2005, since according to the First Appellate Court there are no sufficient grounds to condone the delay.3. Both counsel have admitted that the impugned judgment was passed by the First Appellate Court on the basis of averments of the respective parties as reflected in the delay condonation applic...
Shantaram Damodar Shukla and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3100
ORDERS.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. B. R. Warma for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. Mr. V.H. Dighe, for respondent No. 1 and learned Counsel Mr. D. S. Bagul, who appears for respondent No. 2.2. Facts in brief, may be summarised, as follows - (a) The petitioner No. 1 Shantaram Damodhar Shukla, initially was appointed as Jr. Assistant in Zilla Parishad, Dhule by an order dated June 17, 1964. In due course of time he was promoted as Deputy Accountant and posted as Deputy Accountant in District Rural Development Authority, Dhule (D.R.D.A. Dhule for short) with effect from February, 1988 to June 14, 1991. Petitioner No. 1 Shantaram Damodhar Shukla has attained superannuation on April 30, 2001. During the relevant period, when the crimes have been registered, petitioner No. 1 Shantaram Damodhar Shukla was working in said D.R.D.A. Dhule. The petitioner No. 2 V.R. Chaudhary was appointed as Sr. Assistant on February 19,1973. He had also worked as Extension Officer. At the time o...
Yvonne Maria D'Souza @ Smt. Yvonne Fernandes Vs. State of Goa and Ors. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR388
Lavande A.P., J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the Orders dated 5-6-1996, 22-5-2000 and 19-3-2001 and further a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 to implement the order of reinstatement dated 10-4-2000. The petition further seeks direction against the said respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages from 10-6-1996.2. Briefly, the facts which are relevant for the disposal of this petition are as under:On 24-7-1993, the petitioner was appointed as Full Time Grade I Teacher for the vocational course of Office Management in the scale of 2640-60- 2750-75-2900 by Nath Pai Memorial Reduction Society in Dr. Ambedkar Higher Secondary School, Colvale, Bardez, Goa. The said appointment was temporary for a period of one year only. Thereafter, on 5-6-1995, the petitioner was reap-pointed as Grade I Teacher (Full Time) for the vocational course of Office Man...
Britomatics Engg. Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC158
1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants M/s Britomatics Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (BEPL in short) and M/s Britomatics (India) Ltd. (BIL in short) are registered separately with Central Excise with effect from 21.03.1997. Both have filed separate ground plans which were duly approved by the jurisdictional superintendent. They have filed classification declaration under Rule 173B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 separately claiming concessional rate of duty under Notification NO. 7/97 dated 1.3.1997 for the year 1997-98. During the course of enquiry, it was found by the Central Excise department that the two units having common partners were operating from same premises, manufacturing the same goods, having common machinery and common partners. Further, M/s BEPL was using the brand name/monogram/logo belonging to M/s Britomatics Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to them stating that the two units were one and the same and they have got themselves regist...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »