Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1913)ILR37Bom506
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 Rangoon Botatoung Company, Ltd. v. The Collector, Rangoon 1912 40 Cal 21. Prima facie, as the learned Advocate General admitted, this decision seems to bar the applicant's right to appeal to the Privy Council. It was sought, however, to es...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1912)14BOMLR1194
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 : (1912)14BOMLR833 . Prima facie, as the learned Advocate General admitted, this decision seems to bar the applicant's right to appeal to the Privy Council. It was sought, how...
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 : (1971)73BOMLR643
S.P. Kotval, C.J.1. This is a petition challenging the proceedings taken for acquisition of the lands of the petitioner. The lauds under acquisition are survey Nos. 34, H. No. 1, S, No. 35, H. No. 5, S. No. 35, II. No. 8 and portions of survey Nos. 53 and 52 in all admeasuring 8 acres and 21 gunthas situated at Panch Pakhadi in Taluka and District Thana. The circumstances which led to the filing of the petition are briefly stated as follows:-A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on July 9, 1960 and published in the Government Gazette on July 21, 1960 with a view to acquiring land for a company, M/s. Voltas Limited. That notification was not on the record but we have allowed the petitioner to present a copy thereof in the course of the arguments before us. Objections were invited, under Section 5A, on July 25, 1960 and filed by the petitioner, on August 30, 1960. The petitioner was then heard and was himself present. This was on October 17, 1960. Accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1991Bom111; 1990(3)BomCR452
1. The petitioner No. 2 are a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act No. VII of 1913and are engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tooth paste, cosmetics and toilet preparations. The petitioner No. 2 was incorporated in the year 1937 as a private company limited by shares. Subsequently, in the year 1978, it was converted into a public limited company and 60% of its capital is held by Indian shareholders, while the balance of 40% is held by petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 Company is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, U.S.A. and also carries on business of manufacture and sale of tooth paste, cosmetics and toilet preparations. The petitioner No. 2 is an Indian Company for the purpose of both the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1971. The petitioner No. 2 are not a Company to which Part 'A' of Chaper III of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 applie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(5)BomCR567; (2002)3BOMLR459; 2002(3)MhLj592
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against an Order passed by the learned Single Judge dated February 1, 2002 in Arbitration Application No. 15 of 2001 making appointment of an Arbitrator.2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Jamdar, a retired Judge of this Court, as an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes and differences between the parties, in the place of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Deshmukh, a retired Chief Justice of this Court.3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.4. It is not in dispute by and between the parties that the case is governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Certain orders passed under the Act were made appealable only under Section 39 of the Act. Section 39 read thus :'39. Appealable orders. -- An appeal shall lie from the following orderspassed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorised bylaw to hear appeals from original decrees of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
MohitS. Shah, CJ. 1. This reference has been made to the Full Bench pursuant to the order dated 13 August 2012 of learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : B.R. Gavai, J.) for considering following question of law: Whether the Court can go into the question of the validity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark at an interlocutory stage when the defendant takes up the defence of invalidity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark in an infringement suit? 2. The learned Single Judge felt the need to make this reference in view of two decisions of the Division Benches of this Court, one holding that the Court can not go into the question of validity of registration of a trade mark when such defence is taken by the defendant at an interlocutory stage in a suit for infringement of registered trade mark (judgment dated 16 February 2005 in M/s. Maxheal Pharmaceuticles v/s. Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Appeal No.88 of 2005 in N.M.No.2663 of 2004 in suit No.2663 of 200...
Tag this Judgment!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!