Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1990(1)BomCR561; (1990)92BOMLR70
Sujata Manohar, J1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court under which he has held a foreign award dated 16th September, 1986 made in Paris under the arbitration rules of the International Chamber of Commerce as enforceable under the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961. He has accordingly passed a decree under section 6 of the Act. The appellants have challenged his findings and decree.Relevant Facts.2. The appellant---Renusagar Power Company Ltd. is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Its registered office is at Renukoot, District Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited ('HINDALCO'). The respondent/General Electric Company is a company constituted under the laws of the State of New York. United States of America and carries on its business, inter alia, at 570. Lexington Avenue, New York, U.S.A.3. By a contract in writing dated 24th August...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)88BOMLR587; 1986MhLJ931
S.K. Desai, J.1. In this appeal, on behalf of the respondents, a preliminary point as to maintainability of the appeal has been taken and we are of opinion that we must dispose of the preliminary point at the outset, since, in our opinion, it has to be negatived by reason of a clear direct decision of the Supreme Court on the very point. In order to appreciate the preliminary point and the observations of the Supreme Court, a few relevant facts may be stated:2. Arbitration Suit No. 2921 of 1985 was instituted by the plaintiffs under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the plaintiffs sought an order for filing the arbitration agreement between the parties contained in Clause 20 of the agreement dated September 12, 1981. The plaintiffs also claimed further orders including one for reference to a sole arbitrator. The plaintiffs also filed Arbitration Petition No. 136 of 1985 for interim reliefs. By a common judgment and order dated May 2, 1986, a single Judge of this Court made a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1931)33BOMLR1106
Baker, J.1. This is a petition for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against two orders passed by a single Judge rejecting the application of the applicant for revision of an order of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar, and for excuse of delay in filing a petition.2. The facts of this case are rather peculiar. The applicant filed a suit in forma pauperis in 1910 for partition against his bhaubands. The suit was contested by his nephews and by certain alienees of part of the family property. The suit was referred to arbitration, and an award was passed on September 2, 1913 ultimately followed by a decree in terms of the award on July 31, 1916. Against that decree First Appeal No. 41 of 1917 with Civil Revision Application No. 330 of 1916 was made to the High Court by the plaintiff to set aside the award. The award was ultimately set aside on August 12,1919. Defendant No. 1 applied for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The leave was refused on July 10,1922. The record wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Auth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1933Bom112; (1933)35BOMLR38
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is tin appeal from an order made by Mr. Justice Blackwell dismissing the petition of a wife to have her husband adjudicated a lunatic. The appellant is the wife, and a preliminary point is taken that from such an order she has no right of appeal. That question involves in the first place the question whether the order is a judgment within Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, a question which has very frequently been considered in this Court. I may for convenience refer to a short summary of the decisions in a judgment of mine in Ramanlal v. Chunilal (1931) 34 Bom. L.R. 252 where at page 253 I said :-.putting it shortly, the view which has always prevailed in this Court since the decision in Miya Mahomed v. Zorabi (1909) 11 Bom. L.R. 241 is that any order affecting the merits of the question between the parties by determining some right or liability is a judgment within Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.In that case, and in the cases on which the summary was based, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1983Bom144; ILR1983Bom805
ORDER1. The opponents have preferred this appeal against the order and decision dated 5th July, 1980 of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, dismissing the opposition to the grant of patent and directing the Complete Specification to be amended as indicated in the said order.2. On 28-3-1971 one Noshir Edulji Pochkhanawalla made an application numbered 130620 for registration of a Patent for an invention relating to 'Improvement in or relating to Mufflers or Exhaust Silencers for Internal Combustion Engines' along with provisional specifications. On 14-6-71 the applicant filed complete specifications. The application was accepted by the Controller of Patents and the acceptance was notified in the Gazette of India dated 19-8-1972. The petitioners filed notice of opposition under S. 25 of the Patents Act, 1970. On 10-2-1973 the applicant filed his reply to the Notice of Opposition and on 26-2-1973 the applicant filed his reply -- Statement. On or about 21st June 1973 the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)105BOMLR915
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondents as well as the other learned Counsel in the above matter including the learned Advocate General to assist us on the issue as to whether Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which has been amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 will be prospective in operation or retrospective in operation. The aforesaid Amendment was brought into force on 1st July, 2002.2. The only issue which has been argued is whether any of the pending Letters Patent Appeals which have already been admitted by this Court are also covered by the said Section 100A as mentioned hereinabove, in the sense whether pending admitted Letters Patent Appeals survive in view of the aforesaid amendment or not.3. To appreciate the contentions with regard to the above issue, it would be relevant to quote Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which for the first time by this Code of Civil Procedure ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1951Bom147; (1951)53BOMLR556; ILR1952Bom344
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Shah J., by which he set aside the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks & directed the Registrar to register the mark of the petitioners as a trade mark. The petitioners applied on 12-1-1943, to the Registrar of Trade Marks for the registration of their mark in connection with cotton sewing thread. There was an opposition by the appellants & the Registrar came to the conclusion that the mark which the respondents sought to register was likely to deceive & cause confusion & therefore he refused to register the mark. From this decision of his an appeal was preferred to the High Court, &, as I just said, Shah J. after hearing the appeal came to the conclusion that the Registrar was wrong & that the respondents were entitled to have their trade mark registered.2. A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Desai that this appeal is not competent. The judgment of Shah J., is subject to appeal provided it constitutes a judgment within th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: By this petition (667 of 2011) filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioners seek to challenge the impugned award dated 13th July, 2011 passed by the learned arbitrator holding that the agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondents stood terminated by repudiation on the part of the petitioners and on acceptance thereof by the respondents and directing the respondents to refund of Rs.73,00,51,960/- to the petitioners within a period of 90 days of the said award. The learned arbitrator also awarded arbitration cost in favour of the respondents herein in the sum of Rs.33,00,000/-. The petitioners to this petition were respondents in the arbitration proceedings. By petition (629 of 2011) the petitioners seek interim measures. The respondents herein were claimants in the arbitration proceedings. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are set out hereinunder:- 2. By a Deed of Transfer of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR133; 2009(111)BomLR1745
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioners who claim that they are social workers and except Petitioner No. 3, all other Petitioners have been Members of Legislative Assembly of Maharashtra in the past. It is averred that Respondent No. 3 is a body set up by Respondent No. 1 - Union of India which had published a booklet/brochure in the name of 'JAWAHARLAL NEHRU NATIONAL RENEWAL MISSION'. Being interested in the welfare of the people of Maharashtra, the Petitioners have filed this Petition. According to the Petitioners, the action of the Respondents in adopting resolution of repealing the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act, 1976 (herein after referred to as the 'said Act') is in violation of the constitutional rights vested in the people of Maharashtra, more particularly as enumerated in Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 3 and 39 of the Constitution of India and Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are failing to perform their public duties. The State Government, in the Assembly agreed to repeal the sai...
Tag this Judgment!