Mumbai Court May 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.
Accra Pac (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2006
Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC525
1. The appellants in this case have imported 10240 pieces of bottles and 10608 pieces of caps for clearance of which they filed a bill of entry. These bottles and caps were required to be used for packing of cosmetic under the trade name "aviance". They were issued a show cause notice stating that the subject goods were liable to confiscation in as much as they have not followed the conditions prescribed under Notification No. 1/64-Cus dated 18.1.1964 which prescribes that "goods made or produced beyond the limits of India, and having applied thereto any name or trade mark being or purporting to be the name or trade mark of any person who is a manufacturer, dealer or trader in India unless. (a) The name of trade mark is as to every application thereof, accompanied by a definite indication of the goods having been made or produced in a place beyond the limits of India; and (b) The country in which that place is situated is indicated in letters as large and conspicuous as any letter in ...
Bajaj Tempo Limited Vs. the Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR30; 2006(3)BomCR500; [2006(110)FLR461]; (2006)IIILLJ695Bom; 2006(5)MhLj116
K.J. Rohee, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' Insurance Act, 1948 against the judgment of the Employees' State Insurance Court, Pune dated 26.09.2002 in Application (ESI) No. 2 of 1991 rejecting the application under Section 77 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ESI Act' for short) and upholding the order dated 26.11.1990 by the Deputy Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the ESIC' for short) Pune under Section 45-A of the ESI Act.2. There is little dispute about facts. The appellant is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Akurdi, Pune and one of its factories at Akurdi. The appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of commercial vehicles. It has engaged about 2400 workmen, majority of whom are covered under the ESI scheme.3. By order dated 26.11.1990 under Section 45-A of the ESI Act, the appellant was called u...
Subhas Anna Kool Daund Taluka Sahakari Dudh Uttapadak Sangh Maryadit ( ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR37; 2006(4)BomCR607; 2006(4)MhLj611
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Admit. Heard forthwith by consent. The appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 25-10-2005 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7404 of 2005. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge has set aside the order dated 18-10-2005 passed by the respondent No. 2. By the said order dated 18-10-2005 the respondent No. 1 was permitted to open bank account and to collect milk in the specified area. 2. The challenge to the impugned order is two-fold; firstly, that the order which was sought to be impugned in the said writ petition was an administrative order and, therefore, the petition could not have been entertained by the learned single Judge in view of the provisions comprised under Chapter XVII, Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, hereinafter called as 'the said Rules'. Secondly, that a fraud was sought to be practised upon the Court in as much as that it was sought to be represented by the respondent No. 1 t...
Harishchandra Sarjerao Gajbhiye Former Civil Judge, Junior Divisio and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR26; 2006(3)BomCR497; 2006(5)MhLj759
B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. The petitioner, who joined the judicial service in the State of Maharashtra on 13/7/1988 as Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, has challenged in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the order of dismissal dated 25/5/1995 passed by and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra. 2. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on 16/12/1992 and he submitted his explanation thereto on 20/1/1993 while he was occupying the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Patoda, District Beed and he denied the charges. The charges pertained to the period while the petitioner was posted as Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Ulhasnagar, District Thane. A departmental inquiry was instituted and the petitioner submitted an additional written statement vide his letter dated 5/5/1993. List of witnesses was submitted by him along with the documents required. The pet...
SumikIn Bussan (Hong Kong) International Limited Vs. Manharlal Trikamd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR347; 2006(4)BomCR131
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This is an Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the Chamber Summons taken out by Respondent No. 2 by directing the amendment of the terms and conditions of sale of a flat, in execution, recognising the right of Respondent No. 2 therein under a leave and license agreement dated 8.10.2001.PRELIMINARY FACTS : 2. The Appellant is a judgment creditor having obtained a decree dated 31.5.2002 against Respondent No. 1 passed by the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, in Action No. 4761 of 2001 in the sum of US $ 618,331.26 with interest. Respondent No. 1 is the judgment debtor. On 26.3.2003 the above Execution Application was taken out by the Appellant for execution of the decree of a sum of Rs.3,48,98,644.84 inter-alia against a flat owned, according to the Appellant, by Respondent No. 1. According to Respondent No. 1, he is the co-owner of Flat No. 201, Silver Arch, Nepan Sea Road, Mumbai alongwith h...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Shantilal Motilal Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR52; 2006(4)BomCR119
S.U. Kamdar, J. 1. The present suit is filed by the Union of India seeking declaration that the assignment of seven insurance policies and payment of premiums thereunder by the original defendant no. 3 is with an intention to defraud the creditor i.e. Income-tax Authorities. The plaintiffs have also sought a decree against the 4th defendant for handing over of the proceeds of all the seven insurance policies to the plaintiffs herein. Various other interim reliefs are also sought. 2. Some of the material facts of the present case briefly enumerated are as under :3. The original 3rd defendant took out seven insurance policies on his life and assigned five policies in favour of the wife, one policy in favour of the wife and five children and another policy in favour of wife and two sons. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the original 3rd defendant was apprehended by the Customs Authorities on 18.9.1958 and diamonds worth Rs. 2,79,900/- were found in the taxi occupied by him. This amou...
Manganese Ore (India) Limited a Company Registered Under the Companies ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR152
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This is an Appeal against the order of the learned single Judge admitting the Appellant's Petition under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside an interim award of the learned sole Arbitrator only to consider the issue of jurisdiction. The learned single Judge held that the other grounds of challenge pertain only to disputes relating to facts, appreciation of evidence and interpretation of the terms of the contract, all of which have been dealt with by the learned Arbitrator and did not warrant interference. Thus this Appeal is against the order in so far as the learned single Judge refused to admit the Petition as regards the questions other than the one pertaining to jurisdiction.2. By an order dated 4.2.2002 Anr. learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the Petition at the final hearing thereby negating the Appellant/Petitioner's contention regarding jurisdiction. The Appellant filed an Appeal being Appeal No. 529 of 2002 against this order...
Jayant L. Shah Vs. Naranji Lalji Khona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR653; 2006(6)MhLj584
S.U. Kamdar, J. 1.. The present suit is filed for a decree of declaration that the defendant has no right, title or interest to carry on the business of Messrs. Narshi Hansraj or any other business in the suit premises namely, Shop No. 7-B, Navratan Villa, 279A, Lakhamshi Napu Road, Matunga, Bombay 400 019 and that he is a trespasser in respect thereof. By prayer Clauses (c) and (d) a decree for possession couched in the form of mandatory as well as prohibitory injunction has been sought. Prayer Clause (e) seeks a decree for a sum of Rs. 9,900/- towards the arrears of royalty for a period from 1.11.1978 to 2.12.1979 at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. By prayer Clause (f) damages in the form of compensation or future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 25/-per day has been sought. There are various other interim reliefs in the present suit. 2. Some of the material facts, briefly enumerated are as under :3. The original plaintiff Lakchand Dhanji Shah was an executor appointed under a will ...
Metal Box India Ltd. Vs. B.R. Rangari, Asst. Commissioner of Labour an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR187; 2006(4)BomCR159; [2006(111)FLR466]; (2006)IIILLJ686Bom
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dt.16.11.02 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Bombay. Some of the material facts of the present case are briefly enumerated as under:2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1 of 1956 and have various units in different states. It is the case of the petitioners that in 1987 the worth of the company got fully eroded and there was a negative wealth and accordingly the company's management suspended operations of all its manufacturing units and approached BIFR for a revival scheme, On 27.5.88 the BIFR declared the company as a SICK undertaking within the meaning of Section 3(1)(c) of SICA, 1985. In 1988 the present management took over the company and ultimately reopened the Mahol Unit in July, 1988 and the Deonar Unit in October, 1988. In 1992 they reopened the Bombay unit. On 10.11.85 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 1018795 directed ...
Ramchand Onkarlal Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR884; (2006)IIILLJ441Bom; 2006(4)MhLj339
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.2. Petitioner herein is the proprietor running the business of manufacture and sale of Bidis, having the business location at Kamptee in Nagpur district. Petitioner claims that he employs only ten Bidi-roller home workers, and has two workmen employed to do miscellaneous jobs titled as Tendurwala-curh-Clerk and Relaiwala, who work in the business premises. The petition has been aimed to challenge application of provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act to the petitioner's factory, in particular, and generally to challenge the amended Section 2(12), i.e., definition of 'Factory' and consequential notifications. The prayers read as follows:(i) strike down the impugned Notification No. S-38012/6/89-SS-l dated 20-10-1989 issued by the Central Government vis-a-vis the bidi industry in general and the petitioner in particular as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India;(ii) strike down the impugned Notifica...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »