Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-28-2001
Reported in : 2002(1)BomCR419
Singh, C.J. 1. This batch of appeals has been preferred by the several defendants against the order passed by a learned Judge of this Court exercising original jurisdiction in Notices of Motion No. 3120 of 1997 and 3932 of 1998 in Suit No. 3910 of 1997 M. Sreenivasulu Reddy v. Kishore R. Chhabria [2001] 34 SCL 1. In the suit, the plaintiffs have challenged the substantial acquisitions of shares of defendant No. 12 by some of the defendants on the ground of the acquisitions being in breach of regulations framed by the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which had come into force with effect from 7-11-1994. The learned Judge, by the impugned common order, made the notices of motion absolute in part. It was held that the plaintiffs do have a prima facie right to maintain the suit to seek a declaration that the acquisition of the disputed shares is void being in breach of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers), Regulations, 1994 ('the 1994 Regulations'). It has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-04-2001
Reported in : AIR2002Bom97; 2002(3)BomCR416; (2002)1BOMLR504; 2002(1)MhLj737
1. These two writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as common issues are involved therein and principal prayer is identical for issuance of direction to the Maharashtra Medical Council of Indian Medicines from preventing the members of the public in general and the petitioners in particular from attending the enquiries held under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965. 2. For the sake of convenience we intend to refer to the facts of writ petition No. 493 of 1990. The first petitioner in this writ petition is a journalist employed in the Times of India and she has filed the petition in her capacity as Journalist as well as in public interest. The second petitioner Medico Friends Circle is a registered society and trust. The first respondent is the Maharashtra Medical Council of Indian Medicine, statutory body established under Section 3 of Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965 (for short 'Act of 1965') and the second respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-12-2001
Reported in : 2002(3)BomCR129; (2002)1BOMLR123; [2002(92)FLR160]; 2002(1)MhLj559; 2001IIICLR1025
A.P. Shah, J.1. These appeals are directed against a common order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants. The relevant facts lie in a narrow compass. The appellant No. 1 is a company engaged in the business of producing and manufacturing soft drinks of various brands, such as Coca Cola, Thums Up, Limca etc. The appellant company has employed certain employees through the contractors. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in Appeal No. 782 of 2001 are the contractors. The employees and their union, viz. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena filed complaints of unfair labour practices under items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the 'MRTU & PULP Act'. The employees and the union would be hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents'. It was the case of the respondents before the Industrial Court that the concerned employees were in the employm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-01-2001
Reported in : [2003(96)FLR221]; 2002(1)MhLj760
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In these proceedings, the petitioner impugns an order of the Industrial Court dated 2nd September, 1997 passed in revision in an Application under section 44 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ('the B.I.R. Act').2. The petitioner was appointed as an Accounts Clerk by the first respondent which is a Co-operative Bank registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. In 1975, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Senior Officer, Grade-I and on 12th February, 1985, came to be posted as Branch Manager at the Central Office Branch, where the Head Office of the Bank is located. On 2nd January, 1991, a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner setting out that in violation of the directives issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner had been found to be extending facilities to customers of the Bank beyond 10% of the sanctioned limit. As a result, the Board of Directors had curtailed the powers of Branch Manager to limit such faci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-02-2001
Reported in : (2002)ILLJ453Bom
ORDER1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed this suit seeking a decree of perpetual injunction and other reliefs on the allegation that the Defendants have infringed their copyright in the drawing and the mould used for manufacture of the toothbrushes.2. The facts that are material and relevant for consideration and decision of this Notice of Motion are as under :--The plaintiff No. 1 in the plaint claims that the plaintiff No. 1 is a German Company having its principal place of business at Hermannstrasse 7, 77815 Buhl, Baden, Germany. The plaintiff No. 1 was formerly known as Lingner + Fischer GmbH, having changed its name to that of the plaintiff No. 1 in 1996. It has at all material times been engaged in a variety of business in the healthcare field, more particularly in the design and sale of toothbrushes. The plaintiff No. 2 is a company registered under the Companies Act 1956, and is the exclusive licensee in India under the several cop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-22-2001
Reported in : AIR2002Bom39; 2002(1)ALLMR818; 2001(3)BomCR285; 2001(3)MhLj339
Marlapalle, J.1. All these petitions have assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 29th of November, 2000 passed by the Minister of State for Urban Development. Government of Maharashtra under Section 313(1)(a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, Municipalities Act), By the said order the Municipal Council at Dhule came to be superseded by the Government. The Writ Petition No. 4901 of 2000 has been filed by two sitting Councillors and Writ Petition No. 5142 of 2000 has been filed by the three sitting Councillors, whereas Writ Petition No. 5011 of 2000 has been filed by the President of the Municipal Council, Dhule, By our interim order dated 1st December, 2000 the impugned, order was stayed and, therefore, the elected body continued to be in office, including its President, during the pendency of these petitions.2. On behalf of the State Government the Joint Secretary from the Urban ...
Tag this Judgment!