Mumbai Court April 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.
Shri Shrikant Chintaman Joshi Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation, a Body C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR414; 2006(3)BomCR257; 2006(4)MhLj145
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This petition is filed by an retired employee challenging refixation of his pension at lower scale than what he claims to be entitled. He also seeks to recover retiremental benefits and arrears of pension at the rate claimed by him. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as an Overseer on 8th July, 1966 on the establishment of Pune Municipal Corporation / Respondent. He was placed in the scale of 220-10-240-15-300-20-440 which was revised in 1976 as Rs.460-20-600-25-825-30-975. The date of regular increment was 1st July and he was promoted as Sub-Engineer on 21st March, 1985. He gave option to retain his old pay scale until commencement of the date of original increment. 3. The Petitioner's case is that he was properly placed in the pay scale of Rs.900/- as the post of Sub-Engineer carried pay scale of 500-25-600-30-1050 at the relevant time. His pay was properly fixed from time to time and lastly it was in the basic scale of Rs.14050 when he retired on 30th September, 2...
Commissioner of Customs (imports) Vs. Patvolk (Division of Forbes Goka ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(202)ELT411(Bom)
R.M. Lodha, J1 .On 16.6.2005, the Division Bench admitted this appeal on the following substantial question of law:-Whether the corrigendum dated 11.2.93 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to correct a typographical error in the grade number of the goods mentioned in the less charge demand notice dated 5.1.93, which was legal and well within the period of six months as prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, ought to have been issued by the Commissioner instead of Assistant Commissioner2. Mr.A.S.Rao, counsel for the revenue submits that the aforesaid question does not relate to the present appeal at all. The question that arises in the present appeal, according to him is: whether the `person in charge' as defined in Section 2(31) of the Customs Act, 1962 is the person responsible for any commission of omission in challenging the import manifest alone or his agent is also responsible. 3. The counsel for the revenue is right in submitting that the question fram...
Chowgule Brothers and ors. Vs. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR423; 2006(3)ARBLR457(Bom); 2006(4)BomCR78
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This is an Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the Respondent's Petition under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 setting aside the majority award made by Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 awarded a sum of Rs. 61,73,067.90 and dismissed the counter claim of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.4, who made a minority award, dismissed the claim of the Appellant and the counter claim of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.4 dismissed the Appellant's claim only on the ground of limitation. Respondent No.4 did not consider the merits of the rival contentions regarding the maintainability of the claim for statutory increase in wages. Thus, in view of the majority award, the Appellant was entitled to the sum of Rs.61,73,067.90. 3. The learned Single Judge set aside the award on the ground that the same was contrary to a term of the contract and on the ground that the claims were barred by limitation. 4. Pursuant to the tender submitted b...
Shaw Wallace and Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mohan Rocky Spring Water Br ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR439; 2006(3)BomCR252; 2006(4)MhLj396; LC2007(2)185; 2006(33)PTC180(Bom)
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiffs. The suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs on the basis of their registered label mark bearing No.436744 of which one of the essential features is a numeral '5000'. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant is committing acts of infringement and passing off by using the trade mark 'PRESTIGE 5000' and 'FOUR SQUARE 5000' of which, the numeral '5000' forms an essential feature. According to the Plaintiffs, Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 gives an exclusive right to the Plaintiffs to use the trade-mark 'HAYWARDS 5000' and the essential features thereof including the numeral '5000' and also gives rights to the Plaintiffs to prevent anyone from using any deceptively similar trade-mark. According to the Plaintiffs, in or about the year 1983 the first Plaintiff adopted for and in respect of its strong beer the distinctive trade mark 'HAYWARDS 5000', of which numeral '5000' forms leading and essential feature, wit...
Dewoo Krishna Gawde and ors. Vs. Shri Ram Mills and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR416; 2006(3)BomCR246; [2006(110)FLR27]; 2006(4)MhLj578
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition challenges the order and judgment passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 282 of 1997. Some of the material facts, briefly stated, are as under :2. The respondent no. 1 is a textile mill and had at one point of time around 4000 employees. The petitioner workers are employed by the respondent company for last many years and according to the petitioners they were given work upto 30.7.1996 and with effect from 1.8.1996 no work is given to them. It is the case of the petitioners that the contract of employment between the petitioners and the respondents is still subsisting and valid. 3. Sometime in or about 1987 the company was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as SICA). On 31.10.1991 under section 18 of the said Act the revival scheme was sanctioned. Under the said scheme it was provided th...
Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Throug ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR60; [2006]131CompCas614(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The first of these two petitions is filed by a banking company regulated under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner-bank'). The second of these petitions is filed by an employee of the said bank. These two petitions seek to challenge the notification dated 7th January 2006 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance imposing a moratorium in respect of the 1st Petitioner banking company for a period of 3 months from the date of order upto and inclusive 6th April 2006. Amongst others, it directs the said bank that it shall not without the permission in writing of the Reserve Bank of India grant any loan or advances or incur liability. The exception to this being withdrawal of sums not exceeding Rs.5,000/- by any savings bank or current account holder with a further relaxation to release an amount not exceeding Rs.10,000/-or the actual balance, whichever is less, in the event of certain difficulties such as medical trea...
Askay and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR204; 2006(4)BomCR258; 2006(3)MhLj700
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Judgment and order dated 4-10-1995 rendered by the learned in-charge Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay in Misc. Appeal No. 137 of 1993, by which the petitioners' appeal was partly allowed. The Misc. Appeal was filed against the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer on 29-9-1993 in Reference Application Nos. 194 and 194-A of 1992. Reference Application No. 194 of 1992 was relating to eviction whereas Reference Case No. 194-A of 1992 was relating to damages for unauthorised occupation of T. C. No. 1090, admeasuring about 950 sq.ft in Great Social Building, Sir P. M. Road, Fort, Bombay-400001 (for short, 'the premises'). It was a composite application. Insofar as Reference Case No. 194 of 1992 is concerned, it was allowed and the order of eviction passed under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, 't...
Dnyaneshwer Purshottam Kudalkar (Dr.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR213; 2006(3)BomCR544
Britto N.A., J.1. The petitioner, a Chief Medical Officer, working with New Mangalore Port Trust in the pay scale of Rs. 14500-18700, has challenged the selection and appointment by respondent No. 1, of respondent No. 3 as Chief Medical Officer with respondent No. 2 in the pay scale of Rs. 17500-22300.2. The petitioner has challenged the said appointment of respondent No. 3 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the petitioner's rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as respondent No. 3 has been appointed and/or selected to the said post not being qualified under the rules in force.3.We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri Coelho Pereira and Shri Nadkarni on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 respectively, learned Asst. Solicitor General Shri Ferreira and learned Counsel Shri Nadkarni on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 respectively, at length.4.There is no dispute that respondent No. 3 had been working with respondent No. 2 as a Surg...
Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation Vs. Tukaram Muttappa Pai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR339; 2006(44)MhLj75
S.R. Sathe, J.1. Appellant, Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation, the Original Defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 200 of 1992 has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kalyan in Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1998 whereby the judgment and order passed by the trial Court decreeing plaintiffs suit in his favour and restraining the defendant Municipal Corporation from demolishing the suit premises or any part thereof without due process of law was confirmed and appeal was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, hereafter the parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:By virtue of two separate agreements dated 8-10-1989 plaintiff purchased two galas (shop premises) bearing Nos.7 and 8 situated on the ground floor of the building known as Milan Guru Co-operative Housing Society, situated at Rajendra Prasad Tilak Nagar, Dombivli (East) and after obtaining the necessa...
Rangnath Prataprao Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3438
ORDERS.P. Kukday, J.1. The petitioner has impugned the order of conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hingoli in Regular Criminal Case No. 116/1991, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default, S.I. for fifteen days and the order of the Appellate Court, confirming the order of conviction and sentence so far as the petitioner was concerned passed on 6-5-1998 in Criminal Appeal No. 9/1993.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that complainant Madhukar Manjramkar is staying in Risala Bazar at Hingoli with his son and other members of the family. On 3-3-1991 at about 7.00 p.m., there was a quarrel between son of complainant namely Deepak (PW-4) and the petitioner, during which, petitioner took bite on the shoulder of Deepak. Deepak then lodged a complaint against the petitioner. After completing the formalities in respect of this complaint, complainant and Deepak returned to their house. Soon after that at ab...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »