Court : Mumbai
1. By this petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 petitioner seeks an order of injunction restraining the respondent in any manner utilizing the amount of Rs.14,59,19,989/- received by the respondent from encashment of the bank guarantee and for a direction to the respondent to secure the petitioner to the extent of the said amount by depositing the same in this court. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection about territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain, try and dispose of the present petition filed under section 9 of the Act in its affidavit in reply. This court has thus directed both the parties to address this court on the preliminary objection raised by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts on this issue are as under: 2. By Piece Rate Work Contract executed on 16th June, 2010 at Chennai by and between the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner was awarded the project of construction of automotive test tracks at GARC, Che...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. Upon a difference of opinion between the Division Bench of this court, a reference under Clause 36 of Letters Patent has been made under order dated 11.5.2012 . The points of difference formulated by the referral Court are as follows: i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the decision of the Search committee to include the name of the respondent no.8 in the list of eligible candidates for the Office of Vice Chancellor of the University of Mumbai suffers from any non application of mind visavis condition no.3 when the Search Committee had recorded in the minutes of its meeting held on 12.6.2012 that the committee reviewed each and every application and prepared a list of 20 candidates (including respondent no.8) having all qualifications as mentioned in the statutory order dated 27.5.2009 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 12(3A)(d) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. ii) If the answer to the above question is in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By these two petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Act ), both the petitioners have impugned part of the arbitral award dated 6th December 2011. By consent of the parties, both the arbitration petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these arbitration petitions are under:- 2. The petitioner in Arbitration Petition No.341 of 2012 was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings whereas the petitioner in Arbitration Petition No.1017 of 2012 was the original claimant. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the aforesaid proceedings are described as they were described in the arbitral proceedings in the later part of this judgment as the claimant or the original respondent as the case may be. 3. The claimant is engaged in the business inter alia of operating private FM Radio Stations in various cities in pursuance of the lic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By a brief order dated 29th April, 2016, we directed as under:- "For the reasons separately recorded, we reduce the period of suspension from 13th April, 2016 till 30th April, 2016, both days inclusive. The petitioners can commence their practice from 1st May, 2016." 2. Here are our brief reasons. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge an order of the Maharashtra Medical Council dated 13th April, 2016. By this order, the said council has directed removal of the names of the petitioners for a period of three months from the date of the order. Thus, their names stand removed from the Medical Register, which the Council maintains in terms of section 20 of the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965 (for short "the MMC Act"). 4. The petitioners are doctors and residing at the addresses mentioned hereinabove. The first respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The second respondent and the third respondent govern a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. The Defendant has filed the present Notice of Motion asserting that the Plaint is liable to be rejected as barred by law under Order VII Rule 11 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code). 2. It is submitted on behalf of the Defendant that the present Suit is for infringement and passing off. Leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent has not been granted till date. Hence, in law, there is presently no action for passing off. The action before this Court is for infringement alone. It is submitted that jurisdiction for the action for infringement has not been invoked with reference to the cause of action. In fact, it is an admitted position that no part of the cause of action (infringement or passing off) has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Plaintiffs have sought to sustain jurisdiction, in so far as the plea of infringement is concerned, solely by relying upon Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (the Act). If this requirement is not met, the action must ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
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
Reported in : 2000(2)BomCR244; II(2000)DMC292
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Two couples, Indian citizens, professing the Christian faith, applied to this Court for being appointed as guardians under the Guardians & Wards Act. In the course of the proceedings they amended their petition, to seek a prayer that the children be given to them in adoption. The petitioners being Christians are presently only entitled to be appointed as guardians. They do not fall within the definition of 'Hindu' as defined in the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956. A question immediately arose,whether a civilised State committed to the Rule of law, governed by a written Constitution and signatory to International Conventions on the Rights of a child, could deny to a section of its own citizens the right to adopt a child and to give that child, a home, a name and nationality. Article 14 of our Constitution ensures equality before law to all citizens. Non-arbitrariness is the hallmark of this Article. On 26th November, 1949 we gave to ourselves, a Bill of Ri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(200)ELT15(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. These two appeals are filed by the revenue under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the issue involved in these appeals are common, both these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment.2. These appeals are filed against the orders passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Branch at Mumbai ('the Tribunal' for short) on 13/2/04 and 13/8/04 respectively. The question before the Tribunal was, where the imported goods cleared without payment of duty under a conditional exemption notification are confiscated with an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation and if the option is not exercised by the owner, whether the revenue is entitled to recover customs duty payable on such goods The Tribunal held that on confiscation, the goods vest in the government and the liability to pay duty under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 would arise only if the owner opts to redeem the goods by paying the redempti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1947)49BOMLR709
Leonard Stone, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati dated October 29, 1946, whereby he ordered that the respondent, i.e. the appellant in this Court, do pay into Court a fine of rupees one hundred for the contempt of this; Hon'ble Court committed by him in not obeying an interim order made on September 28, 1946, in having, in contravention of the said order, ordered and directed the Government representative Ramkrishna Dinanath Shirsat to make an inventory of the furniture and other articles in flat No. 13 of the second floor of the building called 'Rupayatan' situated at 69 Marine Drive, Bombay, and to lock up the flat by putting a lock upon the outer door of the said flat and 'driving out the people who might be in possession thereof.' It is further ordered that the respondent should pay to the petitioner his costs of the rule nisi and of the order as between attorney and client.2. That order was made upon a rule nisi issued by the learned Judge on Septemb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR3186
1. The appellants herein claimed themselves to be the successors intitle as well as in possession of the properties survey Nos. 53/1B, 52/1, 52/2, 133 and 46/2 situated at Chahurna (Bk), Taluka and District Ahmadnagar, from the original defendant Nos. 7 & 8 in Special Civil Suit No. 13/1956 decreed on 13.04.1956 by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmednagar. The appellants are the objectors in Special Darkhast No. 57/1977, to the executability of the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 13/1956. The objections raised by the appellants to the executability of the decree are rejected by the Collector, Ahmednagar vide his order dated 24.12.2007 and also by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar by his order dated 07.01.2008. The appellants preferred writ petition No. 276/2008 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before learned Single Judge challenging the aforesaid orders. The said writ petition is dismissed by the learned Single Judge, in motion ...
Tag this Judgment!