Mumbai Court August 1997 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.
Aasia Industrial Technologies Ltd. and ors. Vs. Ambience Space Sellers ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR613
A.P. Shah, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of temporary injunction passed by the learned single Judge. Briefly the facts are that the second plaintiffs are a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and owners of copyrights in various programmes which are produced in India. The third plaintiffs are a body corporate constituted and existing in accordance with the laws of the British Virgin Islands and carry on business as a Satellite TV Channel in Hong kong. The third plaintiffs are the owners of Zee TV. Channel and operate the Zee TV Channel from Hong Kong through the up linking facility and satellite under the third plaintiffs' arrangement with Star TV The first plaintiffs are the exclusive licensees of the copyright in the programmes broadcast on the Zee TV Channel. The second plaintiffs have given an exclusive licence to the third plaintiffs to broadcast these programmes on a 'Zee TV Channel'. This broadcast is made from Hong Kong to the 'Asian Fo...
Mr. S.A.L. Roche Vs. Government of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR78
R.K. Batta, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Admit. With consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the appeal is heard forthwith.2. Learned Advocate Shri A.F. Diniz, for the appellant, relying upon number of authorities to which reference will be made at a later stage, has urged before me that the trial Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the objections filed by the appellant were barred by limitation. He also placed before me facts of the case in support of his submissions.3. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate Shri Bharne, urged before me that even before the award was filed in the Court, the appellant had sought release of the cheque vide his letter dated 9.8.94 and in pursuance of the said letter the cheque was released by the Department on 16.8.94 having accepted the amount, the appellant is not entitled to raise any objection against the award since his conduct disentitles him to raise any such objections. Relying upon paragraph 29 of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›