Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2003Guj275; (2003)2GLR926; (2003)2PLR926; [2003]46SCL118(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. Both these appeals have been placed before this Full Bench in view of the order dated 19-6-2002 of a Division Bench of this Court referring the appeals for consideration and decision before the Larger Bench in view of the wide impact of the questions about interpretation of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure and about maintainability of appeal under Sub-section (5) of Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' or 'the T.M. Act') against the decision made by a learned single Judge of this Court under Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 109 of the Act.2. O. J. Appeal No. 53 of 1998 is filed against the judgment and order dated 22-6-1998 rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in an appeal under Section 109(2) & (4) of the Act by which the learned single Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 22-12-1995 granting the review application filed by Nasik Hing Supplying Co. (the appellant befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom42; (1948)50BOMLR450
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to eject his tenant. The defendant has pleaded the protection of the Rent Restriction Act. At the hearing; of the suit before Mr. Justice Desai attention was drawn to the relevant provisions. of Bombay Act LVII of 1947 under which all pending suits relating to recovery or fixing of rent or possession of premises to which that Act applied had to be transferred to and continued before the Court of Small Causes, Bombay. It was then contended both by the plaintiff and the defendant that Sections 28, 29 and 50 of that Act were ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature and were also repugnant to existing law and void and of no effect. Mr. Justice Desai directed that the plaint should be amended to make the necessary averments and that the Province of Bombay should be made a party to the suit. Consequently the plaint was amended and para, 2-A was added, containing the relevant averments and the Province of Bombay was made a party defen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1980)82BOMLR46
Madon, J.1. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd., who are the respondents No. 1 before us, filed a suit on the .Original Side of this High Court against the State of Maharashtra, the Collector of Bombay, the Director of Prohibition and Excise, Maharashtra, at the time when the orders complained of by the respondents No. 1 were passed, as also the Director of Prohibition and Excise, Maharashtra, at the time of the filing of the suit, and the Union of India for a declaration that the orders dated March 3, 1962, April 10, 1962 and September 20, 1962 passed by the Collector of Bombay and the order dated February 2, 1965 passed by the Director of Prohibition and Excise, Maharashtra, and the notice of demand dated July 1, 1965 issued by the Collector for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,64,415.34P. flora the respondents No. 1 by way of excise duty under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, were illegal, invalid and ultra vires and for a decree in the said sum of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(3)JCR527(Jhr)]
ORDER1. A suit, Title Suit No. 5 of 1986 was filed by the appellants herein as the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 29.4.1989. An appeal was filed before this Court by the plaintiffs on 24.7.1989. That appeal was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 21.1.2002. This appeal was filed invoking Clause 10 of the Letter Patent. The Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act 22 of 2002 and Act 46 of 1999 was brought into force with effect from 1.7.2002. Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure introduced by Act 104 of 1976 with effect from 1.2.1977 was amended. The present appeal was filed only on 30.9.2002, after the coming into force of the amended Section 100A of the Code. The question is whether this appeal is maintainable or could be entertained by this Court. 2. Even at the outset, we must express our disappointment at the assistance we received in deciding this difficult question....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2648; 1997(2)BLJR1076; JT1997(4)SC623; 1997(3)SCALE570; (1997)5SCC87; [1997]3SCR492; 1997(1)LC737(SC)
ORDERK. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.1. These three writ Petitions, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, raise common question of law, challenging Section 3(h) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as amended by Act 68 of 1982 (for short, the 'Act') with effect from February 1, 1983 as unconstitutional, being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The grievance of the petitioners is that while the Act amends, the definition of 'Patent and Proprietary Medicine' under Section 3(h) of the Act, the definition 'drugs' under Section 3(b) read with the definition of 'Ayurvedic drug' under Section 3(a) has not been changed; as a consequence, there is no prohibition for patenting the Ayurvedic drugs manufactured by the petitioners whereas under the impugned order of the Drug Controller dated February 16, 1983 it is so construed and manufacture of those drugs is prohibited. Therefore, the Amendment Act 68 of 1983 and the order passed by the Drug ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2007(115)FLR600]; (2008)IILLJ175Guj
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant - third party, namely, Navjagrut Labour Union, a Regd. Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 represented by its General Secretary Shri Manoj R. Rajput, who was duly authorised by 106 employees, has filed this application seeking permission of this Court to be joined as respondent No. 3 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1164/1998 and also in Special Civil Application No. 8030/1997.2. The application was opposed by the opponent No. 1 - original appellant - original petitioner i.e. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited. An affidavit-in-reply as well as written submissions were filed during the course of hearing. Similarly, application is also opposed by opponent No. 2 - orig. respondent No. 1 i.e. Electricity Mazdoor Sabha, a representative, Union. An affidavit-in-reply is filed on March 29, 2007. The applicant has also filed an affidavit on March 15, 2007 along with the affidavits of more than 200 employees stating that they have left the Electricity Mazdoor. Sab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(1)BomCR198
ORDERF.I. REBELLO, J. 1. The respondent at the hearing of the petition has raised a preliminary objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief as no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is, therefore, contended that the petition which is filed invoking Clause 17 of the Letters Patent of this Court read with section 3 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 is not maintainable. 2. Brief narration of facts may be necessary to decide the controversy. The petitioner married respondent on 24th January, 1987. Out of this wedlock a son named as Faraz was born on 22nd October, 1987. On 3rd November, 1998 the petitioner left Madurai taking along with her the minor son Faraz who was then schooling at Vikasa School at Madurai in Standard VI. The petitioner while leaving left a note. Only the material part of the note in so far as the present issue is concerned will be referred to. The sum and substance in the note is that the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom284; (1961)63BOMLR169
1. This is a revision application against the order of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay refusing the petitioners' application for amendment of their plaint. On 18th August 1955 the petitioners filed Suit No. 2272/11476 of 1955 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay against the defendant Opponent to recover a sum of Rs. 2703-1-0 inclusive of interest. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs had acted as commission agents in respect of certain transactions with the defendant and in connection with those transactions there was an account of the defendant In the account books of the plaintiffs. At the foot of the said account, there remained a balance of Rs. 2,435-3-0 due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs and the particulars of that account were annexed to the plaint. The defendant, according to the plaintiffs, failed and neglected to pay the said balance in spite of repeated demands and ultimately plaintiffs, through their advocate's letters dated 8th December 195...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1444; (1979)2SCC511; [1979]2SCR757
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. These two appeals on certificate arise out of a common judgment and decree, dated January 18, 1966, of a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad. The facts material to these appeals may be set out as under:2. M/s. Hindustan Metal Industries, respondent herein, (hereinafter called the plantiff) is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing brass and German silver utensils at Mirzapur. M/s. Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam, appellant herein, (hereinafter called the defendant) is a concern carrying on the business of manufacturing dishes and utensils in Mirzapur.3. On August 8, 1953, the plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction and damages, preceded by a notice, served on the defendant on September 9, 1952, in the Court of the District Judge, Allahabad, within whose jurisdiction Mirzapur is situated, with these allegations:4. The old method of manufacturing utensils, partciularly shallow dishes, was to turn scrap and polish them on som...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1982)2GLR337
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. This petition raises a short but an interesting an question regarding the legality of deposition given by the general power of attorney holder of a party before the tenancy authorities. The learned Member of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) Mr. V.B. Bakshi has taken the view that the general power of attorney holder of a party cannot depose on oath before the Mamlatdar holding an inquiry under Section 32-G read with Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and accordingly the learned Member of the Tribunal has remanded the proceedings for a fresh decision by the Mamlatdar. The aforesaid view of the Tribunal has been challenged by the dissatisfied applicants in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. A few relevant facts deserve to be noted at this stage. The petitioner no. 1 is the try steel and administrator of an institution known a...
Tag this Judgment!