Mumbai Court October 1962 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.
F. Hoffman La Roche and Company Limited Vs. the Sanitex Chemical Indus ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1962
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR729
Kantawala, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts and evidence in the case, proceeded.] The sections on which the opposition was based, are Sections 11(a) and 12(1). Section 11(a) provides as follows:-11. A mark-(a) the use of which would be likely to deceive or cause confusion; or(b) ...(c) ...(d) ...shall not be registered as a trade mark.This section is contemplating the consequences of the use of the trade marks.2. Section 12(7) provides:-12. (1) Save as provided in Sub-section (3) no trade mark shall be registered in respect of any goods or description of goods which, is identical with or deceptively similar to a trade mark which is already registered in the name of a different proprietor in respect of the same goods or description of goods.The words 'deceptively similar' are denned in Section 2(d) as under:-(d) 'Deceptively similar':-A mark shall be deemed to be deceptively similar to another mark if it so nearly resembles that other mark as to be likely to deceive or cause c...
State Vs. Namgonda Jayagonda Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Bom5; (1963)65BOMLR145; 1964CriLJ28; ILR1963Bom93
1. Twenty-three persons have been convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji, for offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act (Act IV of 1887). The allegation against the accused is that on the 8th of January 1961, they were found present in house No. 280 at Kini, for the purpose of gambling and that accused No. 1, in whose name the house stood, had kept a common gaming house. Relying upon a judgment of this Court reported in Emperor v. Karsandas Nanji, 44 Bom LR 443: AIR 1942 Bom 206 , the learned Magistrate held that it was prima facie undesirable to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a first offence under the Gambling Act. Accused No. 1 has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- under Section 4 of the Gambling Act and all the accused including accused No. 1 have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- under Section 5 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order of sentence, the State filed an application for enhancement o...
Jai Kishan Narang Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR700(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. We are here concerned with the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58, the relevant previous years being those ended on March 31, 1956, and March 31, 1957, respectively. In the relevant assessment years the assessee has been taxed in his status as an individual. Facts giving rise to this reference in brief are : The assessee was the karta of a Hindu undivided family consisting of his wife, Champavati, and his son, Khanchand. The Hindu undivided family was a partner in the firm of Naraindas Chellaram in which the family had a half share. In addition the family had also immovable properties and certain movable assets, such as shares and securities. The family was also carrying on business as guarantee brokers with one Mr. Mehra. This guarantee brokers business with Mr. Mehra was, however, carried on between April 1, 1944, to March 27, 1947. An agreement took place on May 1, 1944, between Bhar...
Parshottam Mahadev Patharphod Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom74; (1962)64BOMLR788; 1963CriLJ573; ILR1962Bom755; 1963MhLJ157
Chitale, J.1. This is a criminal appeal by accused No. 4 against the order of conviction and sentence passed against him under Section 411, I. P. C,2. Prosecution, case briefly stated is as follows : One Pokhraj Ghemaji carries on business in fountain pens etc. at Calcutta. His brother Bhavarlal Ghemaji carries on business in fountain pens etc. in Bombay. On 21-7-1961 Pokhraj purchased a half passenger ticket, and against that half passenger ticket booked a parcel containing fountain pens etc. of the value of about Rs. 2900/- with the Railway, and obtained a luggage receipt from the Railway in respect of that parcel. Pokhraj posted that luggage receipt to his brother Bhavarlal at Bombay. Bhavarlal did not receive that luggage receipt. According to the prosecution, Bhavarlal received a list of the articles sent by his brother Pokhraj by ordinary post in the evening of 23-7-1961. Bhavarlal went to the luggage office at V. T. Station on 24-7-1961, and there made inquiries about the packag...
National Motor Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR986(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of three partners. It appears that these three partners entered into an agreement of partnership on 18th April, 1946. The terms and conditions on which they agreed to do partnership business were reduced to writing in a deed executed on April 1, 1947. The partnership was constituted for five years from April 18, 1946. That period of five years expired on 17th April 1951. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1958-59, the relevant previous year being the calendar year 1957. Now, even though the period mentioned in the aforesaid deed of partnership had expired on 17th April, 1951. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1958-59, the relevant previous year being the calendar year 1957. Now, even though the period mentioned in the aforesaid deed of partnership had expired on 17th April, 1951, the partnership business of the assesse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›