Mumbai Court January 1914 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.
Emperor Vs. Ganpat Sitaram Mukadam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom128(1); (1914)16BOMLR78; 24Ind.Cas.834
1. We assume for the purposes of this judgment that the sentence is an appealable sentence, but we do not decide the point. It is immaterial, because we consider the conviction is correct.2. There is no doubt in our minds that the accused, the present appellant, has in fact used a false trade-mark. We gather this from the conclusion of the Magistrate taken together with the evidence of our own senses when we look at the boxes of tooth powder, one of which is said to resemble the other. That being so, I think there is no substance in any of the defences. It is urged that the conviction is for counterfeit and that a counterfeit trade-mark is not at all the same thing as a false trade-mark which is defined in Section 480. It seems to us, however, that for the purposes of this case false trade-mark and counterfeit trade-mark are the same thing. Then it was urged that the case fell under Clause (a) or (b) or (c) of Section 486. I do not think this is so. The Magistrate decided that this dec...
Narayan Purshottam Gargote Vs. Laxmibai Datto Bhagvan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom1; (1914)16BOMLR189
Shah, J.1. This application arises under the following circumstances :-2. The District Court of Satara having decided Appeals Nos. 67 and 70 of 1911 on its file against the plaintiff, he presented an application for review to that Court on the 10th October 1912. A rule nisi was granted on the 12th October and on the 14th of October he filed a second appeal in this Court against the decree of the lower appellate Court. He also informed the Registrar, while filing the appeal, that he wanted the appeal to be kept pending until his review application to the lower appellate Court was disposed of.3. The District Court has rejected the review application on two preliminary grounds without going into the merits of the application. One1 of the grounds is that certain copies which ought to have been filed with the application were not filed, and that the application could not, therefore, be entertained. Without expressing any opinion as to whether it was necessary to file those certified copies ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›