Mumbai Court January 2008 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.
ing Vysya Bank Limited Vs. Modern India Limited and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR357; 2008(1)ARBLR561(Bom); 2008(2)BomCR255; 2008(2)MhLj653
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The principal issue which falls for the determination of the Court is whether the provisions of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 would bar the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal to entertain a claim for specific performance of an agreement of renewal contained in an agreement of licence executed between a licensor and licensee. The relief which has been sought in these proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is an order of injunction restraining the licensor from terminating the agreement of licence and acting upon a communication calling upon the licensee to hand over vacant possession and in particular, restraining the licensor from initiating proceedings for the recovery of possession of the licensed premises. An injunction has also been sought restraining the licensor from disturbing the use and occupation of the premises by the licensee; from entering into any third party rights in respect of the l...
Ranbaxy Labratories Limited Vs. Universal TwIn Labs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR124; 2008(3)BomCR160; (2008)110BOMLR400; LC2008(1)266; 2008(36)PTC675(Bom)
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of a trade mark, 'VOLINI', in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations falling in class 5 of the Schedule to the Trade Marks Rules. The registration continues to be valid and to subsist on the register. VOLINI which is a word mark, is used by the Plaintiff for an ointment which is stated to provide relief from pain, swelling and inflammation. The mark has been used continuously since 1994. The Plaintiff has, incidental thereto, prepared and used labels and promotional material adopting the mark. The sales figures and promotional expenses between the years 2003 and 2006 are disclosed in the plaint to be thus:Sales Figures 2003 Rs. 215.30 million 2004 Rs. 246.80 million 2005 Rs. 301.80 million 2006 Rs. 382.60 million Promotional expenses 2003 Rs. 17.49 million 2004 Rs. 25.86 million 2005 Rs. 26.02 million 2006 Rs. 23.30 million.In an affidavit filed on 19th January 2008, certain additional facts have been discl...
The Zilla Parishad Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR224; 2008(3)MhLj372
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent.2. The petitioner herein is challenging the Judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, declining to set aside the exparte Judgment and also prays for setting aside the exparte Judgment dated 29th September, 2006. 3. The fact that the Advocate engaged by the petitioner attended first date and the matter was not attended thereafter, is not the matter in dispute. 4. By the Judgment and order dated 29th September, 2006, the Industrial Court has granted the relief of permanency with wages from 27.02.1996. 5. The status of petitioner that it is a statutory body and matters of recruitment, permanency and absorption etc., are depending upon the availability of vacancy and observance of recruitment and absorption procedure. All these material aspects have not come before the lower court due to the fault on the part of the employer-Zilla Parishad or it's Advocate. While on one hand, the Industrial court would b...
Shivaji S/O Banaji Bhagat (Since Deceased, Through L.Rs. Smt. Yamunaba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR640; 2008(3)MhLj366
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The original defendant has by this second appeal challenged the judgment and decree dated 03/12/1990 delivered by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola asking him to deliver vacant possession of suit field on or before commencement of agricultural year i.e. 1st March, 1991. This judgment and decree in regular civil suit No. 69 of 1986 was then challenged by him by filing regular civil appeal No. 2 of 1991 and Additional District Judge, Washim dismissed this appeal on 10/6/1991. This Court has on 25/7/1991 admitted the second appeal by formulating the following question:Whether the finding as recorded in a suit filed in 1985 for declaration and permanent injunction would operate as res judicata2. In this background I have heard Advocate Shri Khamborkar for the appellant-defendant and Advocate Shri Deshpande for the respondent-plaintiff. 3. Advocate Khamborkar points out that first suit in the chain of suits was filed by respondent vide regular civil suit No....
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Smt. Kiran Chandrahasya Tayade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR753; 2008(6)BomCR242; 2008(3)MhLj51
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is finally heard at the stage of admission with the consent of counsel of the parties.2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 20th March, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Circuit Sitting at Nagpur, whereby the original application filed by the respondent came to be allowed.3. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the promotion to the post of Inspector is concerned, the eligibility criteria for female candidate is that the female candidate must have a Height of 152 Cms. and Weight of 48 Kg. It is submitted that unless and until this eligibility criteria is fulfilled by a female candidate, case of such female candidate cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector. By the impugned order, the respondent has been directed to be examined by the Medical Board only for the purpose of ascertaining the correct weight of the respondent and...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Jaykumar B. Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Bom)145
1. Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal relied on its own order dt. 27th Oct., 2005 passed in WTA Nos. 313 to 316/Pn/1992 for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 to 1979-80 and WTA Nos. 16 to 20/Pn/1996 for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 to 1980-81. Revenue had issued a notice under Section 17 of the WT Act. Admittedly the reopening was sought to be done after four years and consequently there has to be compliance with the requirements of the proviso to Section 17 of the WT Act. The notice was dt. 28th May, 1984. The relevant portion of Section 17 as it then stood reads as under:If the AO(a) has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of any person to make a return under Section 14 of his net wealth or the net wealth of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act for any assessment year or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of his net wealth or the net wealth of ...
Vasasnt Govindrao Khode Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR241
More R.V., J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. The petitioner challenges order of Divisional Joint Registrar passed on 22.3.2007 under which the petitioner's revision application No. 22/2006 came to be dismissed and consequently stay granted earlier came to be vacated. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is passed without hearing him and on this sole ground he requested to quash and set aside the impugned order.3. The facts relevant to decide controversy involved in the petition are as under:The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Wardha passed an order on 29.11.2005/1.12.2005 thereby initiating enquiry under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act against the Directors of Wardha Zilla Parishad Karmachari Sahakari Urban Bank, Wardha. In pursuance of this order, notice under Section 88 also came to be issued. The petitioner, by filing revision before the Divisional Jt...
Oberoi Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Worli Shivshahi Co-op. Hsg. Society ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR179(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. In Arbitration Petition No. 233 of 2007 the appellants herein had applied under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for reliefs as set out in their application. The learned judge on considering the various contentions came to the conclusion that there is no binding agreement between the parties. Finding that there is no arbitration clause, petition has been dismissed. [Ed. : See A LR 2008 106 (Bom.) The learned judge further observed that it will be open to the parties considering the pendency of their application under Section 11 of the Act to submit further arguments of their case in that application. An appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the said order.2. Appellants contend that MHADA had in principal granted approval for handing over to the respondent approximately 11,827.74 sq. mtrs. of land. The respondents invited bids from the various developers for redevelopment under Development Con...
Mahakaushal Agrotech Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: IV(2008)BC386
A.P. Deshpande, J.1. By the present application the applicant is seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated against it and pending on the file of the Special Judge, Kurla, Mumbai.2. The applicant is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Bhopal. The main object of the applicant company was to carry on the business of plantations. The respondent No. 2-S.E.B.I. came into existence through the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 on 4th April, 1992. The object of the said Act was to protect the interest of the investors in securities and to regulate the securities market and the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.3. The SEBI-respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the present applicant for commission of an offence under Section 24 read with Regulation 73. It is pertinent to note that the Regulations have been framed and have come into force with effect from 15th October, 1999. ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC179
1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal stands settled in favour of the assessee by Tribunal's order in Terna Shetkari SSK Ltd. v. CCE 2004 (177) ELT 159 holding that once the competent agency under the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 has certified fulfillment of export quota by the sugar factory, the excise department has no authority to challenge the same when the provisions of Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 confer no such authority on the excise authorities to sit in judgment over the decision of the authorities under the Sugar Export Promotion Act.2. In this case the export obligation fulfillment has been certified by the export agency and hence the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal will squarely apply. Following the ratio thereon, I hold that there is no warrant to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence uphold the same and reject the appeal. Cross objection is disposed of accordingly....