Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1971)73BOMLR643
S.P. Kotval, C.J.1. This is a petition challenging the proceedings taken for acquisition of the lands of the petitioner. The lauds under acquisition are survey Nos. 34, H. No. 1, S, No. 35, H. No. 5, S. No. 35, II. No. 8 and portions of survey Nos. 53 and 52 in all admeasuring 8 acres and 21 gunthas situated at Panch Pakhadi in Taluka and District Thana. The circumstances which led to the filing of the petition are briefly stated as follows:-A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on July 9, 1960 and published in the Government Gazette on July 21, 1960 with a view to acquiring land for a company, M/s. Voltas Limited. That notification was not on the record but we have allowed the petitioner to present a copy thereof in the course of the arguments before us. Objections were invited, under Section 5A, on July 25, 1960 and filed by the petitioner, on August 30, 1960. The petitioner was then heard and was himself present. This was on October 17, 1960. Accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(5)BomCR567; (2002)3BOMLR459; 2002(3)MhLj592
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against an Order passed by the learned Single Judge dated February 1, 2002 in Arbitration Application No. 15 of 2001 making appointment of an Arbitrator.2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Jamdar, a retired Judge of this Court, as an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes and differences between the parties, in the place of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Deshmukh, a retired Chief Justice of this Court.3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.4. It is not in dispute by and between the parties that the case is governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Certain orders passed under the Act were made appealable only under Section 39 of the Act. Section 39 read thus :'39. Appealable orders. -- An appeal shall lie from the following orderspassed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorised bylaw to hear appeals from original decrees of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 17Ind.Cas.952
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in the matter of an award made by this Court on appeal from the Court of the District Judge. The proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), and the question raised was as to the value of certain land acquired under that Statute by the Government. It is admitted that the value of the property involved in this application exceeds Rs. 10,000, and it is also admitted that a substantial point of law is involved in this Court's judgment with reference to the position occupied by the Special Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. The difficulty, however, in the way of the applicant is furnished by the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the Rangoon Botatoung Company Limited v. The Collector, Rangoon 14 Bom. L.R. 833 : 16 C.W.N. 961 : 12 M.L.T. 195 : (1912) M.W.N. 781 : 16 Cri.L.J. 245 : 22 M.L.J. 276 : 10 A.L.J. 271 : 5 Bur. L.T. 205 207 : 16 Ind. Cas. 188. Prima facie, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2000]70ITD330(Mum)
ORDERR. V. Easiwar, J M. A group of migrants, in the aftermath of partition, led by Mr. Parmanand Deepchand Hinduja came and settled in Bombay. They felt the need for medical care. These persons banded together and on account of their efforts, a small outdoor clinic was opened in December 1951. In February 1953, the clinic was converted into an indoor hospital with 30 beds which was progressively increased to 70. In 1954, the persons who started the clinic in a small way, formed a society which was named the 'National Health and Education Society'. It was registered under the Societies Registration Act on 13-4-1954. In 1963 a new 100 bed hospital was commissioned in the same plot of land. Gradually this 100 bed hospital increased its activities and in 1972 ventured into medical research. The research institution also came to be recognised by the Government of India. The name of the hospital, after the advent of the research centre, was changed from National Hospital to 'P.D. Hinduja Na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1.By consent of parties, all the aforesaid company appeals were heard together on the preliminary issue raised by the respondents about the maintainability of appeal and are being disposed off by a common order. FACTS IN COMPANY APPEAL (L) NO. 47 OF 2012: 2. By this appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, the appellant challenges the order dated 12th October, 2012 passed by the Company Law Board (For short CLB) by which the CLB allowed the company application filed by respondent No. 2 under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (For short the Arbitration Act, 1996) and referred the parties to arbitration as contemplated under Article 58 of the Articles of Association and clause 20.4 contained in the agreement and as per the provisions contained in the Arbitration Act, 1996. Respondent no. 2 had filed application under section 8 in Company Petition No. 57 of 2012 filed by the appellant under section 397 and 398 read with section 402 of Comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. The Appellant Maharashtra State Electricity Board which is now known as Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) has filed this appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram: Mrs. R.S. Dalvi, J.) dated 18/3/2009. By the said judgment and order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Petition which was filed by the Appellant herein and confirmed the Award dated 18/06/2004 which was given by the Arbitral Tribunal. 2. There is a chequered history of litigation between the parties. For the sake of convenience the Appellant shall be hereinafter referred to as MSEB, though now it is known as MSEDCL and the Respondent M/s Datar Switchgear Ltd shall be hereinafter referred to as DSL. The matter travelled to the Apex Court on more than couple of occasions. Criminal complaints were filed by D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(117)ELT97Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the party's appeal against the above captioned impugned order dated 23-7-1998 praying for setting aside the same, with deemed suitable relief.1. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant imported a consignment of Teletherapy unit - Theratron 980C valued at Rs. 45,38,597 (assessable value) and filed Bill of Entry No. 9293/23-8-1989 claiming duty free clearance under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 by furnishing NMIC and CDEC No. NMI/ENGG/389/88/506, dated 23-8-1989 and Z-37011/ 16/88-MG, dated 21-10-1988. The goods were allowed clearance without payment of duty. Department found that the appellant failed to produce installation certificate in terms of para 4(iii) of the notification, and so goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of Customs Act. Jurisdictional authority was requested to seize the same. It was found by it (jurisdictional authority) that the imported goods was found in the treatment room of the Importer's premises. Under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. This is an Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Arbitration Act"), filed by the Appellants-Petitioners, thereby challenging Judgment and order dated 22 December 2015, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Chamber Summons No.905 of 2013 filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 5, (Original Respondent Nos.1 to 5) is allowed and revoked the leave granted to the Appellants under Clause XII of the Bombay High Court (Letters Patent) Act, 1866 (for short, "the Letters Patent Act"), by holding that "this High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the Arbitration Petition" filed by the Appellants under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. 2. The Appellants and the Respondents and their relations with each other and the Companies in question are described in the Appeal. "Appellant No.1 and Respondent No.1 are brothers. Appellant No.2 is the wife of Appellant No.1 and Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the Directors of Res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
MohitS. Shah, CJ. 1. This reference has been made to the Full Bench pursuant to the order dated 13 August 2012 of learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : B.R. Gavai, J.) for considering following question of law: Whether the Court can go into the question of the validity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark at an interlocutory stage when the defendant takes up the defence of invalidity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark in an infringement suit? 2. The learned Single Judge felt the need to make this reference in view of two decisions of the Division Benches of this Court, one holding that the Court can not go into the question of validity of registration of a trade mark when such defence is taken by the defendant at an interlocutory stage in a suit for infringement of registered trade mark (judgment dated 16 February 2005 in M/s. Maxheal Pharmaceuticles v/s. Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Appeal No.88 of 2005 in N.M.No.2663 of 2004 in suit No.2663 of 200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this chamber summons, the applicants (original respondent nos.1 to 5) seek revocation of the leave granted by this Court on 31st July 2013 to the original petitioners under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to institute and prosecute the proposed petition in this Court against the respondents on various grounds. 2. Though the applicants have applied for revocation of the leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, Dr.Sathe, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants without going into the issue as to whether any such leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent was required to be obtained by the petitioners or not, contends before this Court that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the Arbitration Petition No.1036 of 2013 filed by the petitioners under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act?) and thus leave granted by this Court be revoked. For the sake of convenience, parties descri...
Tag this Judgment!