Kolkata Court March 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Maddi Lakshmaiah and ors. Vs. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: [2001]105CompCas771(Cal)
Ronojit Kumar Mitra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against an order dated September 13, 1990. It falls for this court to decide whether the direction sought for by the appellants in an application made under Section 392 of the Companies Act, 1956, was sustainable. In the present circumstances it would appear to me, that appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have supplied tobacco to National Tobacco Limited. Duncan Agro Industries Limited and National Tobacco Limited referred to as DAIL and NTC in the judgment were amalgamated, by a scheme of merger which had been duly sanctioned by an order dated January 18, 1978, of the court. Thereafter, the appellants supplied tobacco to one TABAC impleaded in the petition and DAIL, on the understanding or arrangement according to the appellants that DAIL would be responsible for payment for the supplies, though invoices would be raised upon TABAC or the Tobacco Division of DAIL. A sum of Rs. 60,24,689.32 it had been contended by the appellants had becom...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Carews Pharmaceuticals and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT86(HC)
Ronojit Kumar Mitra, J. 1. This was an appeal from an order dated June 26, 1992. The writ petitioners, who were the respondents in this appeal, were manufacturers of 'combiflam' tablets since 1984. Admittedly, the formulation of such tablets included two bulk drugs, being 'paracetamol' and 'ibuprofan'. In 1985 it came to the notice of the concerned authorities that the sales turnover of combiflam tablets exceeded Rs. 50 lac, and according to them, the respondent No. 1 became liable to obtain approval of the concerned authorities, regarding the fixation of the minimum retail price for the sale of the combiflam tablets. 2. The writ petitioners had contended, that M/s. Carews Pharmaceuticals Ltd. the respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as 'the company', was a lawfully registered owner of the trade mark 'COMBIFLAM', and that it had been marketing the product under its trade name, independently and entirely on its own, as a small scale unit. The company, it was contended, was conseque...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›