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.
Jeweltouch (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Naheed Hafeez Quraishi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR285; 2008(2)ARBLR321(Bom); 2008(3)BomCR217; 2008(3)MhLj54
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, two reliefs have been sought pending the commencement and conclusion of arbitral proceedings: (i) The appointment of a Receiver in respect of a plot of land which forms the subject matter of the dispute, with a direction to the Receiver to take possession and hand over possession to the Petitioner; (ii) An order of injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating or creating third party rights in respect of the plot. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 7 are the legal heirs of Abdul Hafeez Khairulla Quraishi (Patrawala) who died on 31st July 2005. During his lifetime, the deceased entered into a Memorandum of Understanding of 9th June 2005 under which he is alleged to have agreed to transfer and assign his right title and interest in a plot of land at the Bandra Kurla Complex, bearing CTS No.4207, admeasuring 819.3 sq.mtrs. to the Petitioner. The deceased, the Petitioner and the Eighth Responde...
Ashok Organic Industries Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Compani ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR78; (2008)110BOMLR531; [2008]114CompCas144(Bom); (2008)3CompLJ61(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Reference for our consideration is:Whether an Industrial Company which has made a reference under Section 15 of Sick Industrial Companies Act, can during the pendency of such reference, apply to this Court for sanctioning a scheme of arrangement or compromise with its creditors and shareholders and whether this Court can take cognizance of such an application during the pendency of the reference and pass necessary orders thereon as are permissible in law.2. The Company, Ashok Organic Industries Limited made a reference to the Board of Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as 'SICA'. They were informed by letter dated 15th May, 2002 that the case was registered under No. 195/02. During the pendency of these proceedings before BIFR, the Company resolved on 9th December, 2005 that subject to the sanction of the appropriate Court as may be required unde...
Wyeth Holdings Corporation and anr. Vs. Burnet Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Bom100; 2008(2)ALLMR405; 2008(2)BomCR739; (2008)110BOMLR409; LC2008(1)275; 2008(36)PTC478(Bom)
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This order will govern the Plaintiffs' Motion for interlocutory relief in an action for passing off and infringement. 2. On 6th September 1946, an application was made for the registration of the trade mark 'FOLVITE' in class5 in respect of 'a nutritional factor of Vitamin B Complex in the treatment and prevention of vitamin deficiencies and anemias'. The mark was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal and came to be registered in class5 on 28th April 1949. The registration of the mark continues to be valid and to subsist. The First Plaintiff entered into a Registered User Agreement on 30th April 1986 with Cyanamid India Limited. The name of Cyanamid India Limited was changed to Wyeth Lederle Limited with effect from 1st January 1998. It is undisputed that the Plaintiffs are entitled to use and adopt the mark FOLVITE in a proprietary character. 3. The Defendant initially adopted the mark FOLCACID for its products. Subsequently, the mark was changed to FOLV. Permis...
Shri Tukaram S. Dighole Vs. Shri Manikrao Shivaji Kokate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR370; 2008(3)BomCR141; 2008(2)MhLj281
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This election petition challenges the declaration of the respondent as the elected candidate from 69, Sinnar constituency at the election held on 13.10.2004. It has been filed by a candidate of the NCP-Congress and R.P.I. alliance who unsuccessfully contested the elections. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent has indulged in corrupt practices thereby materially affecting the result of the election for the Sinnar constituency. The petitioner has prayed that the election of the respondent be declared void under Section 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(ii), 100(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The petitioner has alleged that the returned candidate had flagrantly violated the provisions of the Act and the election rules framed thereunder. He has also alleged that the returned candidate had violated several orders of the election commission issued under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner has po...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shashikalabai Wd/O Manohar N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR136; 2008(3)BomCR173
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is an appeal by original respondent No. 3 the Insurance Company. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows On 15/5/1989, deceased Manohar was proceeding towards Amravati by Nagpur . Amravati road near Borgaon. He was riding a Scooter and was following the left side of the road. It is alleged that the truck driven by original respondent No. 1 came from the opposite direction, gave a dash to the Scooter and then the truck turned turtle and fell on one side. The deceased suffered injuries and died. The deceased was 33 years old when he died. He was running a cloth shop and was undertaking contracts of construction etc. His monthly income was Rs. 2500/-. The claimants are the wife, children and mother of said Manohar. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Except original respondent No. 3, none appeared in the claim petition and were proceeded ex parte. 3. Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company has filed written statement and has denied t...
Mohmed YunusuddIn Shaikh Vs. Manganese Ore [India] Ltd. Through Genera ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR141; 2008(3)BomCR71; (2008)IIILLJ94Bom
A.H. Joshi, J.FACTS1. In this petition, notice before admission was issued. The petition is, however, taken up for final hearing and disposal by consent. Hence Rule, and Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a Supervisor [Process]. According to the petitioner, the post was of a non-executive cadre. The petitioner's initial appointment was on probation and he was, in due course, confirmed in the employment. According to petitioner, the work undertaken by the petitioner was of a 'Skilled Technician', and he never worked in the capacity of a Supervisor, and, therefore, he was a workman as defined by Section 2[s] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Petitioner's services were terminated by assigning the ground of absence without any show cause, enquiry etc., with effect from 31st March, 1993 by Order dated 1st January, 1993. 4. The termination order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 1357 of 1994. The said petition was al...
Prashant S/O Haribhau Khawas Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR572; 2008(6)BomCR190; 2008(2)MhLj322
R.V. More, J.1. Rule in all the petitions. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Since, common question of law arises in all these petitions, they are being disposed of by common judgment.2. All the petitioners, in the present writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners' for the sake of brevity) claim common relief for protection of their services in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors. 2001(1) Mh.LJ. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'MHind's Case' for the sake of brevity) as they were appointed prior to 28-11-2000, on which date the judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The petitioners claimed to be belonging to Halba-Scheduled Tribe which is listed at Sr. No. 19 in the Presidential Order 1950 and obtained caste certificate from the competent Authority showing them to be belonging to Halba-Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners, on the basis of caste certificates, secured employment wit...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Suchitra Ganesh Pathare and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ394; 2008(4)MhLj96
A.S. Oka, J.1. The First Appeal is preferred by the Union of India through the General Manager of Central Railway challenging the judgment and order dated 5th September, 2007 passed by the learned Members of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai. The respondents herein filed a claim application under Section 16 read with Section 13(1-A) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 claiming compensation on account of death of one Ganesh Suresh Pathare in an alleged untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).2. According to the case of the respondents the deceased was travelling by a local train on 3rd February, 2002 from Ambarnath to Mumbai-CST. According to the respondents, the deceased was holding a second class railway pass for the period between 16th January, 2002 to 15th February, 2002. The case of the respondents made in the claim application is that when the said train reached at KM No. 32/...
Jayaswal Neco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC232
1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had contract with Indian Railways for supply of brake blocks, brake shoes and anti-creep bearing plates. These were manufactured by them and classified by them under Chapter heading 7307.00 and 7307.10 and the appellants have claimed full exemption under notification 208/83-CE dated 1.8.83 for these products. Under the laid contract the excise duty was shown as nil but it was mentioned that if and when it becomes applicable during the currency of the contract the same will be charged. This contract was entered into in the year 1986. They were, however, issued a show cause notice stating that the goods were classifiable under Chapter heading 8602.00 and accordingly they were liable to pay duty. On receipt of the show cause notice they deposited a sum of Rs. 10,03,348.24 under protest on 19.9.88 and also addressed a letter to the Railways for payment of excise duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem against their purchase order dated 20.2...
Saroj Sales Organisation Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Mum.)485
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee arising out of the order dt.28th March, 2007 of the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the asst. yr. 2005-06.2. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business as builder and developer. The only dispute in this appeal relates to the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80-IB(10) of the IT Act.3. The facts of the case are found by the authorities are that M/s A.W.Pereira and Ors., were the owners of certain plots of land in village Kandivali, Borivali Taluka, Mumbai. M/s Conwood Agencies (P) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'principal developer') acquired the development rights of this plot of land from the said owners. On the basis of the application, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation sanctioned a building plan to the said principal developer for construction of one building consisting of 11 wings i.e. wings, A, B, C, D, E, F,. G. F1, A1, B1 and B2. The principal developer in pursuance of the sanctioned plan itself constructed only...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »