Advanced Search Results

Suresh Jayantilal Ajmera and Others Vs. Rasiklal Gokaldas Ajmera and O ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 12, 19, 25, 28 and 39

Reported in : AIR1997Bom279; 1997(2)BomCR30; 1997(1)MhLj327

Advocate for Respondent : Virendra Tulzapurkar, ;S. Shetye and ;D. G. Joshi, Advs., i/by ;Unnikrishnan

ORDERDr. B. P. Saraf, J. 1. This is an appeal from the order of the learned single Judge rejecting the application of the appellants under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the 'Act') for extending...

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited Vs. Wyeth Holdings Corporation a ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Companies Act; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 40, Rule 1; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2, 11, 12, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 105 and 106; Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959

Reported in : 2005(30)PTC14(Bom)

Advocate for Respondent : Virendra Tulzapurkar, ;T.N. Daruwalla and ;Darius Dalal, Advs., i/b., Jehangir, Gulabbhai, Billimoria and Daruwalla

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Introduction: The controversy in this appeal revolves around the conflict between two identical trade marks, 'Pacitane' registered trade mark of the respondents and 'Parkitane' unregistered trade mark of the appellants.2. The appellants...

Vijay Krishna Kumbhar Vs. Collector and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : CivilConstitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 14; Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - Sections 79

Reported in : AIR2004Bom129; 2004(2)ALLMR31; 2004(5)BomCR904; 2004(2)MhLj636

Advocate for Respondent : P.M. Patil, A.G.P. for No. 1, ;Virendra Tulzapurkar, Sr. Counsel, ;R.G. Ketkar, Adv. for Nos. 2, 4, 7 and 9 and ;S.S. Hardikar, Adv. for Nos. 5 and 6 and ;A.K. Baheti and ;S.J. Rairkar, Advs. for No.

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. P.M. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. R.G. Ketkar, appears...

Aamir Raza HusaIn and anr. Vs. Cinevistaas Limited and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Copy Right Act, 1957 - Sections 17, 18 and 19; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 9

Reported in : 2004(1)ARBLR248(Bom); 2003(3)BomCR827; 2003(27)PTC425(Bom)

Advocate for Respondent : Shyam Divan, ;Ajay Vazirani, Advs. and ;Puja Puri, Adv., i/b., ;Hariani & Co. for Respondent No. 1, ;Virendra Tulzapurkar, ;Salil Shah, Adv. and ;Jamshed Mistry, Adv., i/b., ;Eva Almeida for Respo

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This proceeding raises the question with respect to the copyright in the script of an unfinished cinematograph film based on the Kargil War of May/June, 1999. On the one side of this copyright...

Singhal and Brothers and anr. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and o ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : CivilArbitration

Acts : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 3(1), 4, 11, 11(3), 11(4), 11(5), 11(6), 11(7), 16, 21, 30, 43, 43(2), 43(3) and 43(4); ;Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940; ;Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 43 - Schedule - Article 137; ;Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; ;Land Acquisition Act - Sections 18 and 30; Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1996 - Sections 226

Reported in : 2005(5)BomCR261; 2005(3)MhLj951

Advocate for Respondent : S.R. Rajguru, Adv.

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.2. The main question of law which arise in this petition is as under : Does the Chief Justice or his designate under Section 11 of the Arbitration and...

CR Retail Malls (India) Limited Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authorit ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

Advocate for Respondent : Shri. S. K. Shinde

1) Rule with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked...

Shree Niwas Girni Kamgar Kruti Samiti Vs. Rangnath Basudev Somani

Court : Mumbai

Subject : CompanyCivil

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 235 to 251, 391, 391(1), 391(2), 391(6), 392, 392(2), 393, 394(A), 434, 439, 443, 466 and 643; ;Companies (Amendment) Act, 1913 - Sections 153; ;Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act; ;Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 10(5) and 20; ;Development Control Regulations, 2001 - Regulation 58

Reported in : 2005(4)BomCR708; [2005]127CompCas752(Bom); (2005)6CompLJ246(Bom); [2005]62SCL175(Bom)

Advocate for Respondent : Rohit Kapadia, ;Hutoxi Tavadia and ;Mahesh Thorat, Advs. and

A.P. Shah, J.1. Appeals admitted.2. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, appeals were taken up for hearing. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Appeals are being disposed of by this...

Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Star Glass Works

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Banking

Acts : Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 2; Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Sections 5 and 56

Reported in : 2003(2)ALLMR583; 2003(3)BomCR347; [2003]114CompCas378(Bom); [2003]42SCL769(Bom)

Advocate for Respondent : P.K. Samdani, ;J. Purohit, ;Narendra Jain and ;S.K. Jain, Advs.

R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The important yet interesting question pertaining to legislation by incorporation has been raised in this writ petition. The question is whether in Section 2(e) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks...

Maharashtra Mudran Parishad and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Sales Tax

Acts : Maharashtra Sales Tax on the Transfer of Property in Goods involved in the Execution of Works Contracts (Re-enacted) Act, 1989

Reported in : [2005]139STC193(Bom)

Advocate for Respondent : Rajiv Chavan, Adv.

1. Heard Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajiv Chavan, the learned counsel for the respondents.2. The first petitioner claims to be apex body of printers association in the State...

Rohit Gera Vs. Pune Cantonment Board Golibar Maidan and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

Advocate for Respondent : Shri. K.J. Presswala

A.S. Chandurkar, J. 1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges notice dated 21st May, 2009 issued by respondent No.1 Pune Cantonment Board issued under Section 248 (1) of...