Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-08-1992
Reported in : [1992(65)FLR394]; (1993)ILLJ97Bom
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises from an award made by the learned Labour Judge presiding over the Ninth Labour Court, Bombay, on June 15, 1982, in Reference (IDA) No. 148 of 1979. 2. The petitioner was employed by the first respondent as a temporary part-time teacher in handicrafts. She was subsequently confirmed and was made full-time teacher in the Rehabilitation Department of the first respondent effective from January 1, 1969. It appears that the petitioner's pay was reduced to Rs. 181 from Rs. 200 per month for which the petitioner protested. Her services were thereafter terminated with effect from May 30, 1979, under Rule 22(1) of the Indian Cancer Societies Rules and she was offered an amount of Rs. 3,723.30 with notice pay and leave wages. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute with regard to her dismissal and ultimately the Government made a reference to the Labour Court under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-29-1992
Reported in : AIR1992Bom435; 1992(3)BomCR494; (1992)94BOMLR984
ORDER1. The Petitioner, who is the Chairman of Airfreight Limited and claims to be the Director of 14 other Public Companies espousing the cause of litigants in Greater Bombay, by way of public interest litigation has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of the Bombay City Civil Court and Bombay Court of Small Causes (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdic-tion and Amendment) Act, 1986 (Maharashtra Act No. XV of 1987) -- hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act'. 2. Apart from challenging the competency of the State Legislature as regards the impugned Act the Petitioner has also sought a declaration that the Notification dated 20th August 1991 -- Exh. B to the petition, issued by the State of Maharashtra is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 3. This petition raises pure questions of law relating to the legislative competence of the State Legislature. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-21-1992
Reported in : 1992(3)BomCR408
N.D. Vyas, J.1. The present notice of motion is taken out by the plaintiffs for restraining the defendants from using their mark 'Medisprin' so as to infringe the plaintiffs' registered trademark 'Disprin' and so as to pass off their goods as the goods of the plaintiffs.2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present notice of motion are :The plaintiffs, manufacturers of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, are registered proprietors of a trademark 'Disprin' (word per se) in respect of analgestic preparations falling in Class 5 of the Schedule to the Trade Mark Rules. The defendants are also manufacturers of medical and pharmaceutical products and are proprietors of a trademark 'Medisprin Encotab' for the registration of which they have applied. According to the defendants, their product marketed under the said trademark is a coronary vasodilator and is a Schedule H drug which can be sold only by a licensed chemist and that too only against a medical prescription. According to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-24-1992
Reported in : AIR1993Bom315; 1994(1)BomCR103; 1993(2)MhLj1056
ORDER1. In both these writ petitions, the judgment of the Joint Charity Commissioner, passed in Application No. 3/1992, has been impugned on the ground that under S. 41-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, the Joint Charity Commissioner has no powers to interfere with the process of election to the Governing Council of the public trust, set in motion on the grounds stated in his order dated 14-5-1992 in Appln. No. 3/ 1992 and hence both these writ petitions are disposed of by the common judgment. The question posed is what are the parameters of Section41-A of the said Act. Section 41-A reads as under:-- 'Section 41-A:-- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Charity-Commissioner may from time to time issue directions to any trustee of a public trust or any person connected therewith, to ensure that the trust is properly administered, and the income thereof is properly accounted for or duly appropriated and applied to the objects and for the purposes of the trust; and the Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-09-1992
Reported in : AIR1993Bom10
ORDERK. Sukumaran, J. 1. What the case is about:Malabar Hill of Bombay is well-known all over the world and for very long time. Bombay's general transformation into a nineteenth century urban metropolis did not spoil it much. A guide-book of 1865 remarks : 'The drive from Malabur Hill to Chowpatty along the foot of the cliffs is very pretty. The steep banks are covered with foliage....' Even by 1982, that area, by and large, preserved us earlier form. That was how someone who had taken pains to study the history and geography of Bombay felt. He stated :'Today that, atleast, has not changed. There is still a shanty-town there, clinging tenaciously to some of the most valuable land in the world....'.(See, Gillian Tindall -- 'City of gold', 1982, page 243)2. This litigation concerns that most valuable land. 'Rocky Hill' is an enclave in Malabar Hill. Some area is occupied by the flats constructed therein. They are inhabited by Judges and Ministers, mostly by Judges. The land has been in p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-11-1992
Reported in : (1993)95BOMLR23; (1993)IILLJ997Bom
1. The first respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') was appointed by the petitioner-Company (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') with effect from June 1, 1973 as a sales representative initially on temporary basis and was subsequently confirmed. The Company is a trading concern engaged in sale of radios, transistors, T.V. sets etc., and has its branch office at Bombay from where the business was carried on throughout the State of Maharashtra. The complainant filed a complaint of unfair labour practice covered by Item 1(a)(b) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTU and PULP Act') in the Third Labour Court at Bombay against the company on the grounds that although he was an efficient workman for which he was even given rewards, his services were terminated with effect from March 11, 1978 for no rhyme or reason and thus the company engaged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-03-1992
Reported in : 1994ACJ288; 1994(2)BomCR522; (1994)IILLJ149Bom
B.U. Wahane, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated February 10, 1982 passed by the Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act at Nagpur, in W.C.A. No. 18 of 1978, dismissing the application filed by the appellant/worker, on the ground that it is time barred. Heard Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondent.2. It is not disputed that the appellant Narsayya Ashanna was working with the respondent - Tata Robins Frazer Limited, as Khalashi on monthly wages of Rs. 240/-. On March 11, 1974, he met with an accident while he was in the employment of respondent. He was admitted in the Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, by the respondent, for treatment and he was there till October, 1977. The appellant was under treatment from time to time and ultimately on October 14, 1977, Dr. Marwha, Professor of Surgery of the Government Medical College & Hospital, Nagpur, issued a certificate, certifying him fit to resume duties and a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-03-1992
Reported in : AIR1993Bom40
ORDERDr. E. S. DA Silva, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 24th June, 1988 allowing the Writ Petition No. 186 of 1987 filed by the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter called 'the respondent') against the appellant and others.2. The appellant had filed eviction proceedings against the respondent before the Rent Controller with regard to a building leased to him and situated at 31st January Road, Panaji, alleging that the premises had been let out to the respondent for commercial purposes and to run a 'Hospedaria'. However, the respondent changed the user of the premises and instead started occupying the same for his residential use as well as for the purpose of running a Bar and a Hotel. He has further alleged that the appellant required the premises for his personal use and occupation. The Additional Rent Controller by his judgment and order dated 20th September, 1979 allowed the said application and directed the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-21-1992
Reported in : 1992(3)BomCR556
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. Heard both the sides. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides.2. The only point in this writ petition is as to whether both the lower courts were right in granting injunction restraining the petitioner Karkhana from enforcing bank guarantee without demur in the facts and circumstances of this case.3. The respondent in this case filed the dispute under section 91 before Co-operative Court No. 2 at Pune being Dispute No. 278 of 1990. The respondent is a supplier of sugarcane machinery. The petitioner is a co-operative society manufacturing sugar. The respondent entered into a contract with the petitioner for supplying certain machinery and for erection and commission of the said equipment. It is the case of the respondent that as per the aforesaid contract about 70% equipment was supplied and used by the petitioner factory for crushing season 1988-89. The respondent further contended that on some occasion there was delay in supply of equipment but in fact t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-03-1992
Reported in : 1993(2)BomCR329
..... 1970. inasmuch as defendant 1 was a co-operative society registered under the maharashtra co-operative societies act (mcs act), the suit had to be preceded by the service of a notice prescribed under section 164 of the said act. such a notice bearing the date 1-10-1970 was addressed to the registrar of co-operative societies and that officer forwarded the communication to defendant 1 on 28th october 1970. this section ..... were, and, how they would not take advantage of typographical errors, are a fib and patently so. neither spoke of a mutual mistake disfiguring ex. b in their ..... defendant 1's attempt to slip out of the covenant by recourse to bai hira devi v. official assignee of bombay, : [1958]1scr1384 , is an obvious failure for that case deals with a stranger to a ..... members and where this does not cause substantial damage to the legitimate interests of plaintiff, public policy necessitates refusal of the injunctive relief claimed by plaintiff. providing shelter for human beings and ..... construction was in progress, none of the trustees had objected to the raising of the outhouse.39. to the pleadings summarised in the preceding paragraph, plaintiff came out with denials ..... reproduced above.11. maneck mistry on 2-2-1966 addressed ex. aa-145 to the plaintiff intimating that there was an offer from ratanchand to give some land in ..... of about rs. 10/-. phadke & co., acting as solicitors on behalf of defendant no. 1 inserted an advertisement in the free press journal intimating defendant no. 1's .....
Tag this Judgment!