Court : Mumbai
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
Reported in : AIR1980Bom123
Madon, J.1. The question with respect to this Court's jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit filed on the Original Side has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this High Court and now comes before us for our determination.2. The Plaintiff is the monthly tenant of a flat on the ground floor of a building belonging to Ashok Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited situate at 10th North-South Road, Juhu-Vile Parle Development Scheme, Bombay-400056. By an agreement dated June 20, 1968 the Plaintiff granted to the Defendant leave and licence to occupy the said flat upon terms and conditions contained in the said agreement. The said licence was for a period of all months commencing from June 15, 1968, and the licence fee mentioned therein was a sum of Rs. 400 per month. By clause 14 of the said agreement the Defendant covenanted that , on the termination of the said licence he would remove himself quietly and peacefully along with his family members and his s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2009(41)PTC260(Del)
..... to the request no. 2654/rq/2004, made on 26.08.2004 by you for examination the above quoted application has been examined under section 12 of the patents act, 1970, as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2002 and the first statement of objection of forwarded herewith the compliance. the documents noted in the margin are enclosed herewith for amendment in these respects and shall be resubmitted to this office within 4 months from the date of issue of this statement u/r 24 (4) together with an observation tha ..... 8 of the requirements while maintaining that all the remaining requirements had been complied with. it appears that telephonic discussions took place between the patent examiner and the plaintiff's representative between 15th and 19th october 2005. this resulted in a further letter dated october 19, 2005 by the plaintiff to the patent examiner. in the said letter the plaintiff's attorneys stated that that there has been no further development subsequent to the form 3 which was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1980P& H1
Prem Chand Jain, J.1. The Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1977 (Act No. 20 of 1977) and the Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1978 (Act No. 24 of 1978) were passed by the Haryana State Legislature. By Act No. 20 of 1977, the jurisdictional value of an appeal to the Court of District M Judge from a decree or order of a Subordinate Judge was raised to Rs. 20,000/-, while by Act No. 24 of 1978 it was provided that an appeal from a decree or order of a Subordinate Judge shall lie to the District Judge, irrespective of the value of the original suit. Under Act No. 24 of 1978, an amendment was also made in S. 41 in order to bring the provisions of that section in conformity with the provisions of S. 100 of the Code of Civil procedure. The effect of the amendment in S. 39 under Act No. 24 of 1978 is that all R.F. As pending in this Court shall stand transferred to the Court of the District Judge.2. R.F.A. No. 359 of 1971 (Rajinder Sineh etc. v. Kartar Singh etc.) and R.F.A. No. 67...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC2227
Saikia, J.1. This plaintiff's appeal by special leave is from the Appellate Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Judicature at, Bombay reversing those of the trial court and dismissing plaintiff's special suit.2. The appellant is a Limited Company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office situate at Ahmednagar within the State of Maharashtra. The appellant carries on business, inter alia, as manufacturers of Ayurvedic preparations including 'Asavas', 'Aristhas'. At all times material to this appeal, the appellant was manufacturing and selling an Ayurvedic product called 'Ashvagandhaarist' which is a medicinal preparation containing self-generated alcohol but not capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverage.3. Under the provisions of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', which came into force on 1st April, 1957, excise duties were levied on medicinal and toilet preparations specified i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1929Mad641; (1929)57MLJ264
1. The question referred to the Full Bench is:Is the procedure to be adopted by the High Court in case of an equal division of opinion between the Judges to be governed by Clause 36 of the Letters Catent or by Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure?2. The Letters Patent were issued in 1862 and were modified in 1865 but previously a section like Section 98 had been introduced into the Civil Procedure Code of 1859 by the Amending Act of 1861. Between 1865 and 1877, it could not be suggested that the Civil Procedure Code prevailed over the Letters Patent. It was obvious that the Letters Patent prevailed over the Civil Procedure Code. In case of difference of opinion between two Judges, the procedure in the Letters Patent was the only procedure to be followed. This was accordingly held in Nundeeput Mahta v. Mr. Alexander Shaw Urquhart. (1870) 13 W.R. 209 A fresh Civil Procedure Code was passed in 1877 and another in 1882 and in these Codes Section 575 similar to Section 98 of the presen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 148(2008)DLT198; 2008(102)DRJ106; LC2008(2)1; 2008(36)PTC568(Del)
..... mention in the written statement to the counter claim. the fact thus could not have been mentioned in the appeal. while it is the plea of the plaintiff that appeals under section 117a of the said act can be filed only against orders under section 25 of the said act, it may be noticed that prior to the amendment of the said act vide the patents amendment act, 2005, to the provisions inter alias of section 117a(2), which came into force from 2.04.2007, appeal could be brought against any order of the controller under section 25 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)89BOMLR356; 1987MhLJ503
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated October 13, 1986 passed by the learned Single Judge (Shah, J.) in suit No. 1844 of 1984 filed on the Original Side of this Court. The learned Single Judge after recording his findings on all the three preliminary issues held that the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of statutory under notice Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Co-operative Societies Act'). But, however in regard to his finding relating to the jurisdiction (issue No. 3) the learned single Judge felt that his view in that behalf is in conflict with view taken by another single Judge in Pravin R. Gaglani v. Beharilal Beniprasad : AIR1978Bom255 . He therefore referred the said issue for decision to a larger Bench and directed the office to place and papers of this suit before the learned Chief Justice for appropriate orders under Rule 28 of the High Court Origin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)BomCR699; 2008(4)MhLj803
..... law gets jurisdiction to try them. wherever legislature has intended to transmit pendins appeals to the new forum specific provision to that effect has been made in the statute, for example, the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, patents (amendment) act, 2002 etc. it is true that no litigant has any vested right in a matter of forum but when the appeals have been filed in the tribunal or court before the new law bringing the change in the forum is brought into force ..... held that the appeal was required to be transferred to the district court. similar orders were passed by learned single judges in khalil nabi v. gulam hussain reported at : 2003(2)bomcr479 , and pune municipal corporation v. kanhayalal reported at 2005(2) mh.l.j. 89. the learned single judge of this court, who heard the present application for re-transfer of the appeal, considered the judgment of the learned single judge but expressed inability to concur with the view taken by the learned .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(1)ALLMR705; [2005]125CompCas14(Bom); (2004)1CompLJ358(Bom); 2004(1)MhLj1046; [2004]49SCL660(Bom)
A.P. Shah J.1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties extensively on the issue as to whether Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, (for short 'SEBI Act') as amended by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Act, 2002, is prospective or retrospective in operation. The amended Section 15Z came into force with effect from 29-10-2002. The maintainability of the above appeals has been questioned having regard to the said amendment to Section 15Z of the SEBI Act. SEBI Appeal Nos. 1 and 9 of 2002 were filed much prior to the coming into force of the amended Section 15Z. SEBI Appeal Nos. 10 of 2002 and 1 of 2003, however, have been filed after the amendment was brought into force though the orders impugned in both the appeals were passed before the amendment. The question is whether an appeal would lie to the High Court after the commencement of the amended Section 15Z. There is also an issue as to whether pending appeals whic...
Tag this Judgment!