Mumbai Court December 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.
PravIn S. Shah, Sole Proprietor of United Dyes (India) Vs. Rashtriya M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR871; 2009(111)BomLR604; 2009BusLR168(Bom); [2009]150CompCas110(Bom); 2009(2)MhLj897; [2009]90SCL299(Bom)
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The present matter was referred to this Division Bench by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court, Bombay in pursuance to an order of referral passed by Dharmadhikari J. There was a conflicting opinion on the issue raised in the present matter hence the aforesaid referral.2. The issue before us is;Whether Sections 529, 529A, 530 of Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959 read with Section 35 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 empower the court to award interest to the workmen/employees from the date of winding up order?3. The Company Application has been filed to direct the Official Liquidator of the High Court, Bombay to pay interest @ 12% p.a. or such other amount on the entire dividend to the employees from the date of winding up till the actual payment of the entire amount due and payable to the workers. The above company was ordered to be wound up by an order of this Court dated 21st January, 1983.4. The learned ...
Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR896; 2009(111)BomLR479
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. Being aggrieved by the order, below Exh. 4, dated 18.6.2007 in Civil Suit No. 2/2007 (Garware Wall Ropes Limited.v. A.I. Chopra and Anr.), rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff, the present appeal was filed.3. This appeal was decided by this Court by judgment and order dated 19.12.2007. In Civil Appeal No. 4762/2008 decided on 1.8.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India set aside the said judgment and remitted these appellate proceedings for fresh disposal in accordance with law and also indicated the questions to be decided. Thereafter, respondent-original defendant No. 1 in the instant appeal filed Civil Application No. 6230/2008, which came to be allowed by this Court under order dated 28.8.2008. That application came to be allowed and the documents proposed to be filed with the said application were taken on record. Learned Counsel for both the parti...
Ramdhan and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2487
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by appellants-claimants against judgment and order dated 24.9.2004 passed in Claim Application No. 77/OA-II/RCT/ NGP/2003, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellants-claimants in entirety.2. Mr. Bambal, learned Counsel for the appellants, in support of appeal, made following submissions:(i) The Tribunal has erred in holding that the applicants who are father and mother of deceased Gokul Jadhav are not the 'dependants' for claiming compensation.(ii) The Tribunal further committed an error in holding that deceased Gokul Jadhav was not bona fide passenger when there was enough evidence on the record. The Tribunal further erred in holding that the deceased was negligent by standing at the door of the local train and that, therefore, he had indulged in rash and negligent act which deprives the claimants from making any claim for compensation. Finally, he prayed for allowing the appeal.3. Per contra, Mr. R.S. Agrawal, learned C...
Parle Products Private Limited Vs. Parle Agro Private Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR379; 2009(2)MhLj314
Dalvi Roshan, J.1. The parties to the Suit are Companies incorporated by two Groups of the family of one Mohanlal Dayal Chauhan who have been carrying on business in the name of 'Parle' as a part of their corporate name in respect of products for which each has obtained registered trademarks, inter alia, for the word 'Parle' singly or in conjunction with other words. Whereas the plaintiff carries on business of biscuits and confectioneries in their corporate name, the other group of family of Mohanlal Dayal Chauhan carrying on business of beverages has diversified also into the business of confectioneries which are manufactured and marketed by the defendant. It is the plaintiff's case that the two groups of the family of Mohanlal Dayal Chauhan hailing from Vile Parle were to carry on distinct and separate fields of activities being biscuits and confectioneries on the one hand and beverages on the other and, therefore, neither can trample upon the field of business activity of another s...
Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and anr. Vs. Charu K. Mehta and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2008
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR874; 2009(2)MhLj340
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Civil Application has been taken out in the pending First Appeal by the First and Tenth Defendants. The reliefs that have been sought are (i) the discontinuance of the joint administrators; or in the alternative (ii) the discharge of Mr. A.A. Halbe, who is one of the Joint Administrators; and (iii) the appointment of any one among four named individuals as a Joint Administrator in place of Mr. A.A. Halbe.2. On 26th March, 2007 the Supreme Court appointed Dr. Narendra Trivedi, Vice President of the Lilawati Hospital and Dr. K Ramamurthy, a senior consultant to be in charge of the Hospital for the day to day running of the Hospital and the Research Institute. The order of the Supreme Court was pending the disposal of a suit instituted by the Plaintiff before the City Civil Court inter alia to challenge her removal from the Board of Trustees. The order of the Supreme Court records that the disputes between the parties were liable to impede the running of the Hos...
The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2008
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR408; 2009BusLR130(Bom); 2008(161)LC92(Bombay); 2009(233)ELT446(Bom); [2009]19STT492
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Before we frame the question of law for consideration, a few relevant facts in each of the cases need to be set out.2. Central Excise Appeal No. 175 of 2006 is by the Revenue against the order dated 26th October, 2005 passed by the CESTAT dismissing the Appeal preferred by the Revenue. In this case seven show cause notices were issued by the Department claiming differential duty, penalty and interest under Section 11AB between 2nd November, 1090 to 11th April, 2000. By order of 9th March, 2001 the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the duty and penalty as claimed by the Department. No finding was given on interest as claimed in the show cause notice. The Company preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the demand for duty and penalty. That Appeal came to be allowed on 16th July, 2001. The issue of interest was not in issue before the Commissioner (Appeals). An order then came to be passed on 7th August, 2001 in exercise of the powers conferred under S...
Gtc Industries Limited and anr. Vs. Coastal Roadways Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2008
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR908
Ganoo R.Y., J.1. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,33,576/-. The plaintiffs have sought interest 18 % p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till judgment and thereafter till the realisation on Rs. 1,33,576/- and for costs.2.The plaintiffs case in brief is as under:The plaintiffs have sold the goods in the nature of Cigarettes to M/s. Sharp Commercial Limited at Guwahati. (hereinafter the Cigarettes is referred as 'the suit goods'). The suit goods were to be sent by road through the defendants. Three invoices were issued by the plaintiffs i.e. vendors of the suit goods which are at Exh. P1 collectively. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the goods were to be made over to the defendants on 30th May, 1989 and the suit goods reached the place of delivery in the damaged condition. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants issued three damage certificates which are at Exh. P-2 collectively and it is mentioned in the said certificates taken together that in...
Leelabai Maruti Holkar Vs. Chaturabai Siddheshwar Javeri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR375; 2009(2)MhLj194
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The petitioner has challenged the concurrent finding of fact arrived by both the courts whereby, basic plea of the petitioner-tenant, now her heirs, is rejected that she is tenant of the suit premises. Leelabai, Original-tenant was in occupation prior to 1986. The said room, in an old house made up of mud, in dilapidated condition, was collapsed on 04/10/1986. The petitioner, therefore, filed a suit for mandatory injunction praying for directions to reconstruct the room for her. The suit was dismissed on 14th August, 1989. There is no provision or even otherwise whereby the landlord can be compelled to reconstruct the room for the tenant in situation like this. The tenant can claim possession of the room only in case the landlord obtains a decree against the tenant under Section 13(1)(kk) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, 'The Bombay Rent Act'). The tenant, in a given case, may claim possession of the room if landlor...
H.K. Taneja and ors. and Keshavrao J. Bhosle Vs. BipIn Ganatra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR363; 2009(2)MhLj855
Dalvi Roshan, J.1. Not on board. By consent, taken on board and argued by all the Advocates.2. The applicant has applied under Order 40, Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant must show that he was in possession of the property such that the plaintiffs or the defendant had no present right to remove him.3. The applicant has relied upon an Agreement dated 22.2.2001 to show his initial entry into the suit premises. This is a Leave and Licence Agreement executed by one Urmila Shah, who was the widow of one L.D. Shah, who owned the suit flat and who settled it upon a trust in favour of the plaintiffs with a provision that his widow would live in the suit flat for her life-time. The settlor as well his widow have since expired. This Agreement is not in favour of the applicant but his daughter one Mitali Sawant. It is a licence for 11 months which has expired by efflux of time. It is in respect of the permission to occupy one room in the suit flat with the common use of the ...
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Member, Industrial Court and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR405; 2009(2)MhLj331
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Question whether the Industrial Court functioning under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1971') has territorial jurisdiction to try the U.L.P. (Complaint) filed before it by present respondent working in its jurisdiction against the petitioner-employer having its head office at Ahmadabad in Gujarat and no establishment at Chandrapur.2. The petitioner has pointed out that it is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Corporate Office and Head Office at Ahmadabad in Gujarat State. It is engaged in business of manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products. It has got its centres at New Delhi, Mumbai, Banglore, Chennai, Hyderabad and Kolkata. These centres have been stated to be created in order to co-ordinate the general marketing activity and for sending/receiving the general information/documents, sending/receiving ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »