Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-09-2016
1. This petition is purported to have been instituted as a 'public interest litigation' by the petitioner who claims to be the President of Mumbai Division of Maharashtra Machhimar Kruti Samiti. 2. As we were prima facie not satisfied that this is any genuine public interest litigation, we have heard Mr. Warunjikar and Mr. Balasaheb Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the said issue. At the hearing on 3 August 2016, Mr. Warunjikar made submissions in great details. He submitted that the petitioner undertakes social work and has raised several issues for protecting rights of fishermen. He submitted that the petitioner has obtained information under the Right to Information Act and on basis of the same, has instituted the present petition. He further submitted that from the information made available to the petitioner, it is clear that the SRA Scheme, which the petitioner impugns in public interest, has been approved without there being consent of 70% of the slum dwellers. He...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-11-2016
G.S. Patel J. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction........................................................................ 4 II. Constitutional and Legislative Framework........................... 8 III. Facts in the Monsanto Petition ..........................................14 IV. Submissions and Findings in Monsanto............................... 20 V. Facts in the Subway Petition ............................................. 50 VI. Submissions and Findings in SubwaY...................................53 VII. Conclusion.........................................................................65 I. INTRODUCTION 1. These two Writ Petitions came to be tagged together presumably because they both raise issues of whether, in respect of the transactions that arise in each, the Petitioners are liable to a levy of service tax or sales tax. As it turns out, the facts are materially distinct; and as the following judgment shows, the two cases seem to us to be mirror images of each other: if one fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Aug-11-2016
V.L. Achliya, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dt.23.11.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.25/2011 by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed thereby convicting the appellants No.1 and 2 under Sections 302 read with 34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant No.2 is also held guilty of offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 2. In brief, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are summarized as under:- The appellants were charge-sheeted and prosecuted to face charge u/s 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and appellant No.2 was also prosecuted for committing offence punishabl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Aug-12-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, Rahuri, District Ahmednagar has preferred one group of Writ Petitions and the identically placed Respondents/Daily Wage Employees in the said petitions have also filed the second group of Writ Petitions wherein the Agriculture University is the Respondent. For the sake of brevity, the Agriculture University in these matters shall be referred to as the University and the Daily Wage Employees, who are Respondents in the petitions filed by the University and are Petitioners in their own group of petitions, shall be referred to as the Workers . 3. While issuing notice, this Court by it s order dated 22.04.2016 had directed that the amount deposited by the Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, Rahuri with the Appellate Authority (PGA) shall not be disbursed until further orders. 4. The University is aggrieved by the common judgment dated 20.10....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-18-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. 2. This is an unfortunate case wherein the petitioner who retired after 39 years of unblemished service with the 1st respondent, has been deprived of the benefits of pension under the Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note dated 27 April 2010, when admittedly he is held eligible for pension, the reason being that the petitioner did not deposit within three days, some amount as stated under the 1st Respondent's acceptance letter. In nutshell the facts are: 3. The petitioner joined service of the 1st respondent as a subordinate staff on 4 March 1967. After thirty nine years of service, the petitioner superannuated on 31 October 2006. 4. It is the petitioner's case that the 1st respondent had earlier entered into a settlement with the Bank employees and accordingly a Circular/Notification was issued under which employees who retired post 1995 (29 September 1995) were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Sep-06-2016
Oral Order: 1. Heard Shri S. S. Ghate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Taiwade, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no. 1. 2. Though respondent no. 2 is duly served, none appears for the respondent no. 2. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 4. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Labour Court, Buldana dated 3-3-2006 in Complaint (ULP) No. 546/2004 and judgment and order dated 2-2-2015 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Akola in Revision ULP No. 39/2006. 5. The facts giving rise to the present petition can be summarized as follows. The petitioner in response to an advertisement calling applications for the post of Instructor in the Industrial Training Institute at Mehkar submitted his application as he was duly qualified. The petitioner was selected and appointed temporarily on 4-1-1998. An appointment order was issued on 2-6-2000 whereby the petitioner was appointed on the fixed scale o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-19-2016
CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION.................................................... 4 B. FACTS..................................................................... 6 C. MAINTAINABILITY...............................................12 D. LIMITATION..........................................................78 E. RELIEFS AND ORDER...........................................87 A. INTRODUCTION 1. The facts of the case are straightforward. The issues they raise, though narrow, are not. A very great deal of learning has been cited on both sides of the debate: some of the precedents are very old indeed. Counsel have argued that later decisions effectively upturn the older ones, even if they do not say so in so many words. There are two principal issues of law: first, limitation; and, second, whether the jurisdiction of a civil court is ousted in claim such as this because of the statutory provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 ( MPTA ) (Earlier the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Act 29 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-04-2016
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. As per the order passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, this Appeal is placed before us for deciding following questions of law, which are framed by learned Single Judge of this Court [Coram : R.C. Chavan, J.], when the Appeal was placed before him for admission:- (I) Does Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act provide adequate protection to the parties from transfers pendent lite since such transferees are not required to be, or entitled as of right to be, impleaded as parties to the suit and cannot resist execution proceedings in view of provisions of Order XXI Rule 100 of the Code as amended by this Court? (II) Would plaintiffs' registering notices of their suits under Section 18 of the Indian Registration Act (though such registration may not be compulsory) not secure for plaintiffs more than what an injunction could secure since transferees, who purchase property, pendente lite in spite of such registration would be deemed to have n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Oct-14-2016
1. This is a suit for injunction and damages, in which the defendant has lodged a counter claim. 2. The plaintiff s case is as under: The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is inter-alia engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of brandy, whisky and other alcoholic beverages. The defendant is also incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of brandy and other alcoholic beverages. The plaintiff had applied to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, for registration of a design for their bottle. The same was granted on 11.08.2000, as design no. 183202 dated 11.08.2000, which is a Class-IV registration (the said design, for short). The said design was registered under the Designs Act, 1911 (the old Act, for short). The Designs Act, 2000 (the Act of 2000, for short) came into force on 11.05.2001. As per Section 48(2) of the Act of 2000, any registration certifica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-19-2016
1. Being aggrieved by both the orders dated 25th August, 2015 passed by the learned District Judge 3, Nashik allowing the application (Ex.5) filed by the respondent (original plaintiff) in Suit No. 1 of 2015 and Suit No. 2 of 2015 inter alia praying for injunction against the appellant, his directors, partners, officers, servants, agents and representatives restraining from using the marks, trade marks or labels that are similar or identical to that of registered trade mark and copyright of the respondent in any manner during the pendency of the suit and for other reliefs, the appellant (original defendant) has preferred these two separate appeals. The parties in this order are described as per their status before the learned trial judge. By consent of parties, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by a common order. The parties have agreed that reasons as may be recorded by this court in Appeal from Order No.393 of 2016 shall also be applied to Appeal from Or...
Tag this Judgment!