Mumbai Court October 2005 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.
Polaroid India P. Ltd. Vs. Nav Nirman Co. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR972; III(2006)BC41; 2006(1)BomCR252; (2005)107BOMLR747
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit is filed for the recovery of the amount given under leave and licence agreement towards the security deposit. Under the said leave and licence agreement the defendant have given to the plaintiff the premises on leave and licence basis and on return of the premises the security deposit of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- was required to be returned by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant has offered the said premises and by letter dated 12.8.99 even removed themselves from the premises and offered to hand over possession to the defendant. The defendant however has not accepted the possession thereof and contends that there is infact an agreement to sale the said premises. Learned counsel for the defendant in support of his contention has contended that actual arrangement which was arrived at was of sale of the said premises to the plaintiff and he relies upon two subsequent agreements being dated 1.7.95 and an undated agreement. The agreement dated 1.7.95 me...
Hetero International Vs. Shandong Medicines and Health Products Imp an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR198; II(2006)BC500; 2006(1)BomCR143; (2005)107BOMLR718
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. By these two notice of motions, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction restraining the defendant No. 2 from in any manner whatsoever making payment to the defendant No. 3 and further restraining defendant No. 3 from making any payment to the defendant No. 1 under an Letter of Credit issued by the defendant No. 2. Further order is also sought restraining defendant No. 2 from debiting the account of the plaintiffs in respect of the amount covered by the said Letter of Credit. By Notice of Motion No. 2329 of 2003 further interim reliefs are sought that the Letter of Credit opened by the plaintiffs with the defendant No. 2 should be discharged and further restraining defendant No. 2 from debiting the plaintiff account @ sum of Rs. 7000/- per month or any other charges towards the said Letter of Credit. By prayer Clause (c) of the said notice of motion, plaintiffs are seeking to lift the lien and release the fixed deposit of Rs. 47,61,771.41 which has been imposed for du...
Prof H.C. Patel and ors. Vs. Kaushik Desai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR162; (2005)107BOMLR752
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present notice of motion has been taken out to determine the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue under Section 9A of the CPC. 2. Prayer (b) of the motion is to declare that in view of the provisions contained in the Society Registration Act and the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 particularly in view of Sections 50, 51 and 81 thereof this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit and consequently the present suit is liable to be dismissed. 3. Before I deal with the rival submissions of the parties it is necessary to set out the true facts of the present case in so far as they are relevant for determination of jurisdictional issue. 4. The defendant No. 2 is an institution known as institution of mechanical engineers. The said institution is a society registered under the provisions of the Society Registration Act, 1860 and thus a public trust under Section 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. By virtue of aforesaid deeming fiction all the provis...
Shree Ram Mills Limited Vs. Kalpataru Construction Overseas Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR229(Bom); 2006(1)BomCR89; (2005)107BOMLR779
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Arbitration Act') read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenges an order passed by a learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No. 78 of 2005. By the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has, on a petition filed by the first respondent herein, under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, passed the following order: '... ORDER (i) Interim order in terms of prayer Clause a(ii) and a(iv). (ii) In case the Petitioners deposit an amount of Rs. 13.30 crores in this Court and furnish a bank guarantee of a nationalised bank in the terms in which it is contemplated by the contract between the parties dated 28-6-2004 to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary & Sr. Master of this Court, within a period of eight weeks from today, interim order in terms of prayer Clause a(i) shall stand granted. (iii) In that event, the Receiver shall take possession of the property and ...
Ritesh Kumar Vs. State of Goa as Represented by Officer-in-charge, Map ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: (2006)108BOMLR361
N.A. Britto, J.1.This appeal is filed by the accused who has been convicted and sentenced under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the said Act, for short) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa.2. The facts of the case of the prosecution, as stated by Police Inspector Shri Menezes/Pw.6 is that on 28.12.00 at about 14.05 hrs. while he was attached to Mapusa Police Station, he received specific reliable information that a person of about 22-25 years of age was staying in room No. 205 of hotel 'Gaurav' and was having a consignment of charas and that he reduced the said information into writing and gave a copy thereof to Sub Divisional Police Officer Shri Gawas/Pw.7 in his office, and then deputed constable Satodkar to secure the presence of two panch witnesses, and after t...
Vasantkumar Jivrambhai Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra (at the Insta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR1149; 2006CriLJ1135
Abhay S. Oka, J.1. Rule. The learned A.P.P. waives service for the Respondent No. 1. Service on Respondent No. 2 is dispensed with. Taken up for hearing forthwith. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Associate Advocate General for the State.2. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Code') is to the show cause notice dated 26th April 2005 issued by the Special Executive Magistrate, Mulund Division, Mulund, under Section 111 of the said Code.3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the notice under Section 111 of the said Code is contrary to law. He pointed out that the notice recites that there was a dispute between the Petitioner and the witness No. 1 over the business of cable network business. It is alleged that the Petitioner hurled abuses at the witness No. 1 and therefore, a N.C. complaint has bee...
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Indkus Biotech (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj78
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This notice of motion has been taken out by the plaintiff against the defendant in reference to the trade mark 'REVITAL' of the plaintiff and 'RABITAL' of the defendant by invoking the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short 'Trade Marks Act') and Copyright Act, 1957 (for short 'Copyright Act') on the foundation of passing off and infringement to trade mark, Copyright and rendition of accounts for profit as contemplated under the Acts.2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its Business office at Ranbaxy House, Plot 89, 15th Road, MIDC, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093.3. The trademark 'REVITAL' is one of the well known product of the plaintiff company. The said trade mark is a nutritional category product (Ginseng with multi vitamins and minerals) The said product is available in India and abroad. The said trade mark has been continuously in use since 1988. The word 'REVITAL' was adopted by the plaint...
Ravi Amrutrao Bagde Vs. Commissioner, Amravati Division and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR781; 2006(3)BomCR359; 2006(2)MhLj33
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. As per election programme last date of submitting nomination was 9-8-2005, date of scrutiny was 11-8-2005 and date of publication of List of valid nominations was 12-8-2005. Respondent No. 4 submitted three nomination papers in said election from reserved constituency for scheduled caste, scheduled tribes etc. It is his contention that during scrutiny objection was raised that he was defaulter under Section 73FF of Maharashtra Co-operative. Society's Act and returning officer gave him time of one-day to point out that he is not defaulter and accordingly on 12-8-2005 he produced no due certificate and still his nomination paper came to be rejected. The said error is corrected on 25-8-2005 by Divisional Commissioner in appeal under Section 152A of Maharashtra Co-operative Society's Act. The petitioner has approached against this appellate order contending that no such time till 12-8-2005 was given to said respondent by returning officer and in any case, 9-8-2005 ...
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Tidal Laboratories P. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(32)PTC221(Bom)
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. Though I am considering only the ad-interim application the matter has been argued at length by both the learned Counsel and both wanted the matter to be heard at the ad-interim stage and not final. In that view of the matter I am required to grant a detailed reasoned order which I accordingly pass herein.2. The present application for ad-interim is moved by the plaintiff on cause of action of passing off under the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction from this Court restraining the defendant from in any manner using the impugned trade mark named 'Rabemax' or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff trade mark of 'Rabemac' so as to pass off the plaintiff product as that of the defendant. By prayer (b) Court Receiver is sought in respect of various materials, packages, cartons and the articles and dyes. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is entitled to injunction on the basis of pas...
Sangko Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC634
1. The appellants are a registered SSI Unit interalia engaged in the manufacture of medicaments falling under chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act at the initial stage. They contracted out to engage the factory to a loan licence manufacturer since they did not have sufficient infrastructure for manufacture and marketing of their own products, in the year 1988 M/s Cross Land Research Lab (hereinafter referred to as CRLL for brevity) was one of the loan licensee and non SSI unit who utilized the factory of the appellant to manufacture with their own raw material, packing material & supervision and control products I) Estrogesic & ii) Statuin-V approved by the food & Drug administration by allotting license no 2966A. Similarly in the year 1989 CRLL got other products also registered with Food & Drug administrator these products were I) Extrogesic A.F. ii) Mobinak for manufacture as loan licensee.2. a) The production and clearance of the products under the provision of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »