Mumbai Court December 1983 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.
Asha Soap Factory Vs. Dhanthak and Company and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1983
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR298
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. This is an Appeal from Order dated 18th March, 1983 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, in Notice of Motion No. 503 of 1983 taken out by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as `the plaintiffs') in Short Cause Suit No. 601 of 1983.2. The facts and circumstances under which the present appeal came to be preferred are that the plaintiffs filed a suit in the trial Court for permanent injunction against the present appellants (hereinafter referred to 89 `the defendant No. 1') from manufacturing washing soaps bearing their trade mark or trade mark identical or similar or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark and for permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as `the Defendant No. 2') from selling such soaps and further ordering defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to render accounts of the business done in selling such soaps and ordering them to pay the profits derived from such business to the plaintiffs. The ...
Shantilal Walchand Kothari Vs. Shantabai Purushotam Deshmukh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom306
ORDER1. This is tenants petition challenging the appellate order in rent control proceedings commenced on an control application under Clause 13(3) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent controlOrder, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Order') maintaining the order of the Rent Controller granting permission to respondent No. 1 landlady under Clauses 13 (3) (iii) of the Rent Control Order to terminate petitioners tenancy on the ground of subletting.2. Respondent No.1 landlady filed an applicaiton under Clause 13(3) (ii) and (iii) of the Rent control Order for permission to terminate petitioner's tenancy of the grounds that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and that he unauthorised created sub-tenancy in favour or one Pandurang Gulabrao Deshmukh, since deceased, whose legal representativesare present respondents Nos. 2 to 5 . The Rent Controller held that the petitioners was a habitual defaulter and that he inducted a sub-tenant without ...
Veeramma B. Babu Vs. Janardhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1983
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR46; 1984MhLJ276
H.H. Kantharia, J. 1. This appeal arises from a judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, on 28th January, 1977 in S.C. Suit No. 2930 of 1976 rejecting the plaint on the ground that City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.2. The facts are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') filed the suit against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') in the City Civil Court, Bombay, that she was in possession of a hut bearing No. 283 (ACW) situate at Geeta Nagar, Holiday Camp, Colaba, Bombay-5, which was constructed by her on the land belonging to Government of Maharashtra. Somewhere in the last week of December 1975, the defendant approached her and said that he was in dire need of temporary accommodation and he and the members of his family be allowed to stay with her. The plaintiff acceded to his request and allowed him, his wife and a child to stay along with her. However, on 24th Febr...
Kamani Tubes Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator and Liquidator, Kamani Bros. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1983
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR92; [1985]58CompCas233(Bom); 1984MhLJ618
Chandurkar, Actg. C.J.1. The appellants are admittedly owners of the premises which have been described in detail in annexures B, E, F and G to the affidavit in support of the judge's summons. There is no dispute that Kamani Bros. Pvt. Ltd., who were the lessees of these premises, have been directed to be wound up by an order of this court dated August 3, 1979, and the official liquidator was appointed to take steps for the winding up of the company. It appears that the official liquidator wanted to give out the premises in question on a caretaker basis and, therefore, he not only wrote to other tenants in the premises but also issued an advertisement in a local newspaper inviting offers from intending caretakers with a view to hand over the premises to them on caretaker basis. A part of the premises having an area of 1,334 square feet on the mezzanine floor in the building known as 'New Kamani Chambers' is admittedly in the occupation of respondent No. 2, namely, Kamani Metal and Allo...
Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1983
Reported in: 1984(17)ELT50(Bom)
1. The petitioner No. 1 - Gujarat State Export Corporation Limited - is a Government Undertaking incorporated as a Company under the Companies Act, while the petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder and Director of the petitioner No. 12. The petitioner No. 1 carries on business as an export house and as an eligible house were granted eight import licences during the period from January 29, 1973 to October 4, 1973. The petitioner No. 1 imported 64 Boxes (pallets) containing synthetic resin (polyester chips) valued at Rs. 6,21,010.00 and the goods reached Bombay Port on May 31, 1974. The eight import licences were transferred to the petitioners as provided under Import Policy for the year 1973-74. The petitioners submitted the Bill of Entry and other shipping documents to the Bombay Customs on May 31, 1974 and took steps for early release of the consignments. On August 17, 1975, i.e. almost after one year and two months of the submission of the Bill of Entry, a Show Cause Notice was served on t...
Johann A. Wulfing Vs. Chemical Industrial and Pharmaceutical Laborator ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom281
Lentin, J.1. Is the word CIPLAMINA deceptively similar to COMPLAMINA? Such is the essential nature of the controversy before us.2. The appellants carry on preparations. On of their trade marks is COMPLAMINA registered on 5th May 1960 for a medicinal and pharmaceutical preparation which according to the appellant's sold in India since 1966 in the form of ampoules (under doctors' prescription) and tablets (across the counter) for the treatment of vascular disorders. The registration is subsisting. On 17th July 1972, the 1st respondent-Company (referred to hereafter as 'the respondents') who carry on like business, filed an application for registration in their name the mark CIPLAMINA proposed to be used by them in Part A Class 5 in respect of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparation. The appellants filed their notice of opposition inter alia on the ground that the respondents proposed mark was deceptively similar to their registered mark. The respondents filed their counter-statement. Ev...
Hiralal Parbhudas Vs. Ganesh Trading Company and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom218
Lentin, J.1. This is an appeal from the Judgment and Order of the learned single Judge dismissing the appellants petition for setting aside the order passed by the Deputy rRRRRRegistrar of Trade Marks rejecting the appellants' application for rectification of the register.2. The appellants are bidi manufacturers and were the proprietors of four label marks registered in Part A in the Trade Marks Register in April 1943, May 1950, August 1950, and September 1956. For the moment, broadly stated, the appellants labels comprise of the bust of a man and the name Hiralal in Devanagri script over the bust.3. Respondents 1 and 2 (referred to hereafter as 'the resopondents') who carry on like business, applied on 7th January, 1970 for registration of their label which for the moment, broadly stated, comprises of the bust of a man and the name Himatlal in Devnagri script over the bust. The application was signed by the 1st respondent's partner Vallabhdas Laljibhai Patel. The respondents label was...
Ratnaprapha V. Tople Vs. Sulochana Damodar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1983
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR128
B.A. Masodkar, J.1. This is original unsuccessful landlady's petition with regard to her claim against respondent No. 1 tenant on the basis that the said tenant was a defaulter with regard to rental liability. The petitioner-landlord set up entitlement to a decree either under section 12(3)(a) or under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). The courts below have held that either of the clauses of sub-section (3) of section 12 of the Act were not available. Those findings are seriously challenged in the present petition. 2. Few facts, which are more or less not in dispute, be stated at the outset. The suit premises, which are flat No. 2, 'F' Building in Vijay Colony, Juhu Lane, Andheri (West), Bombay, are taken on lease by respondent No. 1-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-, which did not include water charges, education cess and other charges for the amenities. The petitioner landlady purchased this pr...
Salgaocar Engineers Private Ltd. Vs. Shri O.J.F. Gomes, Asst. Collecto ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1983
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR127
Bharucha, J.1. A great deal of mineral ore is exported from the port of Marmagoa. The draught at this port is not sufficient for bulk carriers to be fully loaded at the quay-side. Ore exporters have, therefore, resorted to the expedient of employing what are called transhippers. These are vessels which are anchored mid-stream. To them barges bring mineral ore. Bulk carriers which have already been loaded as far as the draught permits at the quay-side are brought alongside the transhippers. The equipment of the transhippers, cranes and conveyor belts and such, tops up the bulk carriers with the ore brought by the barges. The 'Gosalia Prospect' is one such transhipper.2. Certain spare parts arrived at Marmagoa on October 23, 1979. They were imported for the 'Gosalia Prospect'. At this point of time the petitioners were Receivers of the 'Gosalia Prospect', having been appointed in certain court proceedings. The petitioners applied for clearance of the spares without payment of customs dut...
Kwality Overseas Employment Vs. Ninth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1983
Reported in: (1984)7ITD689(Mum.)
1. The assessee is a firm. It entered into an agreement with Khyber Enterprises Inc., Chicago, running an Indian hotel at Chicago. The assessee under the agreement was to get a commission of 3 per cent on the gross sales made by the Chicago party for the services done by the assessee as per the agreement. For the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee filed an original return for Rs. 21,529. Subsequently a revised return was filed showing a loss of Rs. 7,590. The reason for filing the revised return was stated to be the fact that the assessee, who had computed its income originally under the mercantile system, had changed it over to the cash system. The ITO did not accept the assessee's case of changing of the system of accounting. The return was filed long after closing the books. There was, according to the ITO, no necessity to revise the return. There was also no need to reverse an entry relating to the receipt of commission. Holding that the assessee, thus, had acted on an after-th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »