Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-27-2002
Reported in : 2003(3)BomCR367; 2003(27)PTC115(Bom)
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. On an application moved under Section 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 ('the Act') by the first respondent, the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks passed an order on 21st June, 1989 which is challenged in these proceedings. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks allowed the application and directed that the registration granted of the mark of the appellant in Class 12 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 ('the Rules') would stand expunged from the Register of Trade Marks. The appellant has moved this Court in an appeal under Section 109 of the Act. Registration of the appellant's mark :2. The appellant was incorporated on 27th April, 1968 and claims to have adopted the word mark 'Allied' in respect of parts and fittings of automobiles. On 3rd November, 1978 an application was filed by the appellant (342368-B) for the registration of its word mark 'Allied' in Class 12 before the Registrar of Trade Marks claiming that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-31-2002
Reported in : 2003(4)MhLj82
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. The petition under Article 227 takes exception to the order passed by the Co-operative Court No. 1 Bombay dated 19.4.2001 below Application dated 1.3.2001 and dated 23.4.2001. Briefly stated S.R. Saudagar/Respondent No. 2 instituted dispute under Section 91 against the petitioner society being case C.C.1/73/90 (CC II/374/80). In that dispute Respondent No. 2 filed an application dated 1.3.2001 for permission to withdraw the dispute. That application was opposed by Respondent No. 1 contending that he has acquired interest in the suit property and, therefore, the should be joined as party to the dispute and be permitted to pursue the remedy claimed in the dispute. Notably, Respondent No. 1 is one of the son of Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 took that stand on the premise that the suit property originally belonged to Respondent No. 1's father Ramnath viz. husband of Respondent No. 2. After his demise in the year 1983 the suit property was transferred in the name ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-30-2002
Reported in : (2003)181CTR(Bom)550; [2003]260ITR401(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. All these four income-tax references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment, as common issues are involved in all these references.2. The questions raised in each of the references are as follows :The questions raised at the instance of the assessee.3. I. T. R. No. 170 of 1987 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the surtax payable by the assessee was not deductible in computing the assessee's income under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' ? 2. (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 8,61,010 incurred by the assessee on what has termed a 'sales, literature and miscellaneous promotional aids' was expenditure on advertisement, publicity and sales promotion and as such includible for disallowance under Sub-sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-30-2002
Reported in : [2003]126TAXMAN408(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.All these four Income Tax References under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment, as common issues are involved in all these references.2. Questions raised in each of the references are as follows :Questions raised at the instances of the assesseeI.T.R. No. 170 of 1987'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the surtax payable by the assessee was not deductible in computing the assessee's income under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'2.(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that expenditure of Rs. 8,61,010 incurred by the assessee on what has termed a 'sales, literature and Misc. promotional aids' was expenditure on advertisement, publicity and sales promotion and as such includible for disallowance under sub-section (3A) of section 37 of the Incom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-18-2002
Reported in : (2003)(154)ELT729Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Appellants against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV, made in Order-in-Original No. 6 of 1999, dated 20-9-1999 whereunder he has classified "UNSTERILISED ABSORBABLE CATGUT SUTURES" manufactured by the Appellant classifiable under Chapter subheading 4201.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and confirmed the demand to the extent of duty payable on the said goods for the period 30-11-1998 to 31-3-1999. The order also stated that the duty amount would be quantified by the department and the amount so quantified was intimated in writing to the appellant before 22-9-1999 and the order further directed payment of the same by the assessee forthwith.2. The appellant has a manufacturing unit at Dharavi, Mumbai where it undertakes manufacture and clearance of a single product namely UNSTERILISED ABSORBABLE CATGUT SUTURES. It is an undisputed position that the product as cleared by the appellants is inevitably used in the manufacture o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-18-2002
Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR596; 2003(4)BomCR412; 2003(2)MhLj823
S. Radhakrishna, J.1. By this petition the petitioner employer is challenging part I of the Award dated 29-6-1994 and part II of the Award dated 23-2-1995 passed by the II Labour Court, Pune in the Reference (IDA) No. 219 of 1987. 2. By the aforesaid Part I Award, the II Labour Court has given a finding that the enquiry held by the petitioner employer qua the respondent workman was not fair, proper and legal. Subsequent thereto, by part II of the Award, the learned Presiding Officer of the II Labour Court, Pune has partly allowed the Reference and the dismissal order issued to the workman was set aside and the petitioner employer was directed to re-instate the respondent workman with continuity of service with 40% backwages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. 3. Being aggrieved by both the Awards, mentioned hereinabove, viz. Part I Award as well as Part II Award, present petition has been filed by the petitioner employer contending that both the Parts of the Aw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-19-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR206; 2003(2)BomCR374; 2002(4)MhLj913
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The petitioners challenge the order dated 7th August, 2002 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan District -Thane under Exh. 40 in Reg. Civ. Suit No. 471 of 1998. By the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners for their joinder as the parties to the suit. Considering the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, and which are in force with effect from 1st July, 2002, and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Rajabhau s/o Mahadeorao Rahate v. Dinkar s/o Shantaram Ingole, reported in 2002 (3) Mah, LJ 921 the impugned order would not be revisable and therefore, the petition would be liable to be rejected in limine. However, the learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the expression 'other proceedings' in the proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure would include miscellaneous as well as supplementary proceedings in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-18-2002
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
Decided on : Sep-13-2002
Reported in : (2004)1BOMLR638
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Sangli dated 31st March 1987 in Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1982.2. The premises in question consists of room admeasuring 40 x 10 sq.ft. in CTS No. 305, Pet Bhag, Sangli. The original petitioner Natwarlal Gokuldas Shah was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises some time in the year 1852. The respondent is the landlord. The Respondent instituted a suit for possession against the tenant on the ground of default and bonafide requirement in the year 1970, being RCS No. 19 of 1970. However, we are concerned only with the ground of default. The tenant contested the said suit. It was his case that annual rent in respect of the suit premises was only Rs. 150/- per annum and not as demanded by the landlord. The trial Court accepted that claim of the tenant. The trial court, however, found that the Respondent landlord was entitled to r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-04-2002
Reported in : (2003)(151)ELT610Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal revolves around interpretation of Note 6 to Chapter 34, Note 3 to Chapter 35 and Note 5 to Chapter 38 of the Tariff. Each of the notes which are identically worded reads thus - "In relation to products of this Chapter, labelling or relabelling of containers and repacking from bulk Backs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer, shall amount to "manufacture"." 2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has held that by application of these notes, the activities undertaken by the appellant before us, must be deemed to be manufacture, and demanded duty and imposed penalty on the appellant.3. The appellant is a trader in textile chemicals. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Commissioner's order narrate the activities of the appellant, which are under consideration before us, as follows : "2. M/s. TC procures the orders from the customers through their marketing staff speci...
Tag this Judgment!