Mumbai Court January 1961 Judgments
Ramchandiram Mirchandani Vs. India United Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom92; (1961)63BOMLR678; ILR1962Bom186
(3) The effects, good and bad, of the managing agency system have been well expressed by Mr. Justice Pratt in Parshuram Dataam Shamdasani v. Tata Industrial Bank Ltd., 55 MLJ 697 (Suit NO. 2643 of 1923 OCJ of this Court). He says:'Under this system (managing agency) a firm of financiers engrafts itself into the vitals of a Company by making its employment one of the Articles of Association. It usurps the functions of management, which properly belongs to the Directors. It may be either a source of strength supplying the Company with finance; on the other hand it may be a parasite draining the Company of its lifeblood.. . . . . .'.During the latter part of the war and thereafter experience showed that in quite a good number of cases the latter applied and therefore the Legislature intervened and recast the entire Companies Act, providing for a large number of checks which prevented managing agents getting control of the Board of Directors and thereby enabling themselves to cover their o...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. Vs. J.C. Engineer and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1961
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR568
Patel, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the Judge of the City Civil Court granting conditional leave to defend to the petitioner on his depositing Rs. 13,000 in Court.2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for a sum of Rs. 17,064.37 nP. and further interest on Rs. 14,952.97 nP. alleging that it had supplied certain goods to the defendant and that this was the amount due to it towards the price of the same. In the summons for judgment the defendant claimed leave to defend the suit and raised several defences. It alleged that the goods were in short supply, that they were defective and the rates were high. It raised contentions in respect of its purchase of two winding machines in April 1957 and sale of 4 Bowl Friction Calendar machines. Both transactions were alleged to be with plaintiff. In the counter affidavit the plaintiff referred to the bills towards which the amounts were due. It was pointed out that out of the 21 bills, 14 bills contained the rates quoted...
Tag this Judgment!S. Vasudevan and ors. Vs. S.D. Mital and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom53; (1961)63BOMLR774; (1963)IILLJ264Bom
Tambe, J.(1) These four Petitions have been placed before us for hearing on being referred to by Mr. Justice K. K. Desai. These four petitions gives rise to some common questions of law and can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. In the first two petitions, M. P. Nos. 248 and 254 of 1960, constitutionality of the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1960, No. 1 of 1960, promulgated by the President has been challenged, while in the other two petitions, M. P. Nos. 255 and 256 of 1960, constitutionality of Rule 4 (A) and rule 4 (B) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, has been challenged. The questions raised are of considerable importance.(2) Facts giving rise to these petitions may be briefly stated. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 123 of the Constitution, the President of India promulgated as Ordinance called 'Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1960', hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance. It is in the following...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Sattar Mohmed HusseIn Vs. Badrinarayan Bansilal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom29; (1961)63BOMLR563; 1961CriLJ871; ILR1961Bom841
Patel, J.(1) This is an appeal with leave of this Court by the complainant, who alleged that the respondents were responsible for counterfeiting his trade mark in respect of bidis and selling them under the same.(2) The complainant is a Depot Manager of Munshibhai Bidi Works doing their business at Poona, the proprietor being Abdul Hafeezhjan Abdul Azizkhan. Munshibhai Bidi Works have been using labels on the bidis with the portrait of the proprietor since the year 1932. Upto 1932 substantially the label was the same as is now being used but in the portrait there was a very small difference. After 1932 the same label is used and is produced at Ex. 12.(3) It is alleged that the father of the accused, one Taranalal, started Chandrakant Special Munshi Bidi Works in about 1935-36, but, according to the complainant in 1936 Ratanlal came out with a label in some manner similar to that of Munshibhai Bidi Works Poona but it failed on the ground of limitation since the complaint was made after ...
Tag this Judgment!Anneliese Huckmann Nee Merz and anr. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom88; (1961)63BOMLR650
ORDER(1) The question that is raised on this petition is as to whether the word 'Patentex' could be registered as a trade mark in reference to the contraceptives manufactured by the petitioners. The Petitioners have averred in their petition and they had also averred it before the Registrar of Trade Marks that for long many years the contraceptives manufactured by them were marketed in many countries of the world including India under the mark 'Patentex' and that it was only during the period of the Second world War that the goods could not be imported into this country and that, therefore, it was only for that period of time that no sale of those goods took place in this country under the mark 'Patentex'. It was, therefore, contended before the Registrar and also before me by the learned counsel Mr. Shah that the word 'Patentex' was quite different from the word 'Patentex', that it did not describe the quality of the goods to which it was, attached and that, therefore, there could pos...
Tag this Judgment!J.L. Mehta and anr. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom82; (1961)63BOMLR642
(1) A short but rather an interesting question has been raised on this petition and the question is as to whether the word 'Sulekha' which was registered as a trade mark by the Registrar of Trade Marks as far back as on 4th May 1953, in connection with fountain pens, nibs, etc, which were being manufactured by the petitioners means 'good writing' so that it amounts to a description of the fountain pens and other materials manufactured by the petitioners, in which event, that word would not be registrable as a trade mark.(2) It appears that the petitioners started the business of manufacturing fountain pens and other materials some time in 1951. They dealt in these fountain pens and other materials as 'Sulekha' fountain pens and materials. On 8th January, 1952 the petitioners applied to the Registrar of Trade Marks for registration of the word 'Sulekha' as a trade mark in connection with the fountain pens and other materials that they were manufacturing and dealing in. After the necessa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›