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 : (1926)28BOMLR243
Tarapoerwala, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs allege that for several years prior to 1914, they had manufactured and sold under the names of ' Sanatogen ' and ' Formamint ' certain chemical compounds for use in medicine and pharmacy, that within a short time the said compounds sold under the name of Sanatogen and Formamint acquired a very high reputation throughout India and the sales thereof were large and profitable and the names of Sanatogen and Formamint had come to mean chemical compounds of the plaintiffs' manufacture. They further allege that on the outbreak of the War the said compounds were imported into India by the plaintiffs' London firm until the property and assets of the plaintiffs' London firm were sold in June 1917 by the controller appointed under the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act 1916 to Genatosan Limited, that from and after June 1917, the said Genatosan Limited imported the said compounds under the names of Sanatogen and Formamint, that on the termination...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1943Bom12; (1942)44BOMLR819
Macklin, J.1. These three appeals arise out of two suits brought by one Ganesh Ramchandra and a third suit brought by the family of Laxman, who was Ramchandra's brother. Each suit was for a declaration of the right of the plaintiff to a half share in certain property alleged to belong to the family of which Ramchandra and Laxman were the two eldest members; and for a proper understanding of them it is necessary to set out the facts at some length.2. Ramchandra and Laxman went to Bombay from the Ratnagiri district more than fifty years ago and worked at the Mint; and though Laxman appears to have been the more able of the two and to have earned more money and had a better head for business, they both managed to save a certain amount of money, and they kept three joint accounts with three different banks in Bombay. Laxman, as the better business man of the two, was given a power-of-attorney by Ramchandra; and it seems that the practice of the brothers was that when any transactions affec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission in view of the urgency expressed by all. 2. The petitioner-Dental College and Hospital has prayed for several reliefs, which are reproduced as under: a. quash and set aside the impugned refusal/nonrenewal of the Permission as communicated under Letter dated 30.3.2013 (Annexure-P1) interalia, direct the respondent No.1 Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Dental Education Section, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi to renew/grant permission for 3rd Year MDS Course of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in the Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society's Dental College and Hospital, Amravati for the Academic Session 2013-14, in view of above and in the interest of justice. b. considering the Representation dated 16/18.4.2013 (Annexure-P4) of the petitioner College, direct the respondent No.2 Dental Council of India, Kotla road, New Delhi to Inspect and Verify the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(4)BomCR226; [2002(94)FLR888]
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order of the Labour Court passed under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act disallowing her claim for Mess Allowance and Conveyance Allowance. 2. A few facts of the case in brief are as under :The petitioner was appointed in the Acworth Leprosy Hospital as a Nurse in 1971. Her appointment letter stipulated that she would be paid a particular pay plus uniform allowance, special allowance, washing allowance, dearness allowance, dearness pay plus additional allowance for messing. The Acworth Leprosy Hospital (hereinafter referred to as 'the hospital'), which was an autonomous body, was taken over by the Bombay Municipal Corporation-respondent No. 2 herein, and the mess allowance which was being paid to the petitioner was discontinued w.e.f. 1-6-1987. The petitioner has informed that this allowance was discontinued since the nursing staff working in the dispensaries were not entitled to the allowance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1999Bom127; 1999(2)ALLMR103; 1999(1)BomCR626; II(1999)DMC221; 1999(1)MhLj388
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. Whether the wife can be denied maintenance pendente lite under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 only on the ground that her marriage with her husband is the second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage and the same is void under section 11 read with section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act and whether such a wife is also disentitled from claiming interim maintenance in proceedings under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 are the questions which fell for consideration in this review petition.2. Very few facts are necessary for appreciation of the controversy arising in this petition. Both the principal parties namely the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 are Hindus governed by Hindu law. The case of the respondent No. 1 is that she was married to the petitioner according to the Hindu vedic rites on 29th June, 1986 in a temple at Ulhasnagar and that the respondent No. 2 is their daughter born from the marriage. The re...
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 : 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
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking an order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 03/01/2011 and 09/03/2011 passed by Respondent No.3 on behalf of Respondent No.2. Petitioner further seeks an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to correct its record so as to reflect that 3rd to 9th year annuities for the Patent No.207883 as paid and also to correct its record so as to reflect that 10th year annuity for the Patent No.207883 as paid. Petitioner is further seeking restoration of Patent No.207883 or in the alternative a direction directing the Respondents to proceed with the application for restoration of Patent No.207883 on merits and in accordance with law. 4. Petitioner is a Japanese Corp...
Tag this Judgment!