Mumbai Court December 2008 Judgments
Kbc Pictures Vs. A.R. Murgadoss and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR598; LC2009(1)205; 2009(40)PTC627(Bom)
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Leave under Rule 147 of the High Court (Original Side) Rules 1980 is granted to the plaintiff. Respondents waive service.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. By this motion, the plaintiff seeks injunction restraining the defendants from infringing his copyright in the story, screen play and dialogs in the Hindi remake of the Tamil film 'Ghajini'.4. The defendant No. 1 wrote the story, screen play and dialogs for the Tamil film 'Ghajini'. According to the plaintiff, by an agreement dated 29th December 2004, the defendant No. 1 by receiving a consideration of Rs. 11 lakhs assigned to him the copyright in the story, screenplay and dialogs of the Tamil film 'Ghajini' with a right to remake the film in Hindi language. In the month of November 2008 the plaintiff learnt that the defendant No. 3 was making a remake of that film in Hindi in violation of the copy right of the plaintiff. He has, therefore, sought an injunction restraining the defendants from releasing the...
Tag this Judgment!Dnyaneshwar Bhalchandra Jamdade Vs. Kumar Babu Sonawane and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR350; 2009(111)BomLR473; 2009(2)MhLj220
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The land involved in the present dispute is survey No. 38/3 which admeasures about one acre and 5 gunthas in village Malshiras, District Solapur. Kondi Bapur Mahar, the father of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was the landlord of the aforesaid suit land. He sold the land to Respondent No. 4 who in turn sold it to the petitioner. The father of Respondent No. 1 was a tenant on that land from 1951-1952 to 1955-1956. The possession of the land was handed over to the landlord in 1956, according to the petitioner. Thereafter the landlord continued cultivating the land, personally. In 1970-71, the Additional Tehsildar, Malshiras initiated an enquiry Under Section 32(1B) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (for short, 'BT&AL; Act') suo moto. The tenant's statement was recorded and according to the petitioner, he had expressed his inability to purchase the land. A copy of this statement has been annexed to the petition. The statement of the landlord was also recorded by...
Tag this Judgment!People for Elemination of Stray Troubles by Its Convener Dr. Rosario M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR501
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In the above, the following questions have been>referred to us by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice:(1) Whether in the circumstances and seriousness of the problem, the danger posed and the menace caused by the stray dogs, resort can be had to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the relevant provisions of the Bombay Municipalities Act, Maharashtra Municipalities Act and the Goa Municipalities Act and other enactments?(2) Whether inspite of the aforesaid provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and other Acts referred to above, the killing of the stray dogs has to be totally prohibited?2. Before answering the aforesaid two questions a little background would be necessary to understand the same. A Division Bench of this Court by a Judgment and Order dated 5th October, 1998 had laid down various guidelines to deal with the problem of stray dogs. The abo...
Tag this Judgment!Plastiblends India Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Ac ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2008
Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Bom)291; [2009]178TAXMAN397(Bom)
ORDERVijay C. Daga, J.1. Heard. Perused appeal.2. At the behest of the Assessee, the present Appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), arising from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) dated 30.3.2007 raising the following substantial question of law.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that depreciation allowance ought to be deducted while computing the total income for the purposes of deduction Under Section 80HH?Factual Panorama:3. The Appellant is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The appeal is concerned with assessment year 1997-98 for which the previous year was the financial year ending on March 31, 1997. The Appellant, since previous year relevant to assessment year 1994-95, is engaged in the business of manufacture of Masterbatches and compounds. For this purpose it has its ...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Balmukund Acharya, Proprietor of Laxmi General Supply Company Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR462; (2009)221CTR(Bom)440; [2009]310ITR310(Bom); [2009]176TAXMAN316(Bom)
Vijay C. Daga, J.1. Heard. Perused appeal.2. This appeal, under Section 260-A read with Section 246(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), has been preferred by the assessee seeking to challenge the order of the authorities below, i.e., the Assessing Authority, Appellate order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and further appellate order dated 13.3.2001 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench 'D' Mumbai, the Tribunal for short).The Issue:The substantial question of law involved in the appeal is as under:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that no appeal lies against the order of intimation under Section 246 of the Act and that the order under Section 143(1)(a) is limited to the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer and the said adjustment does not include denial of tax liability by the assessee and that additional ground leading to tax liability of capita...
Tag this Judgment!Clifford Chance Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR428; 2009BusLR148(Bom); (2008)221CTR(Bom)1; [2009]318ITR237(Bom); [2009]176TAXMAN458(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. These appeals are filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal('ITAT' for short) both dated 27th September, 2001 in I.T.A. Nos. 1327 and 1328/Mum/2001, whereby the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the C.I.T.(A) both dated 19.12.2000 which were dismissed, were admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law.(A) Whether the ITAT's conclusion that the Appellant had not proved that it had rendered services outside India is vitiated in law on account of -(i) it being contrary to the evidence and the material which was admittedly on record and which had been accepted, after enquiry, by the respondent and the CIT (A)?(ii) that ITAT's ignoring the material and the evidence which was admittedly on record and which had been accepted, after enquiry, by the respondent and the CIT (A)?(iii) the ITAT ignoring rele...
Tag this Judgment!Syntex Pharm Ag Vs. Cipla Limited and Syntex Usa Llc
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1303; LC2009(1)370; 2009(41)PTC144(Bom)
A.S. Oka, J.1. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in support of the prayer for ad-interim relief. I have also heard learned Counsel appearing for the defendants.2. According to the case of the plaintiff, Syntex (USA) Inc. was the REGISTERED proprietor of the trade mark 'Cellcept'. The said registered proprietor conceived and adopted the trade mark 'CELLCEPT' and applied for registration thereof on 13th October 1993. The said Syntex (USA) Inc. merged into second defendant pursuant to a scheme of merger. Pursuant to the said merger, all the assets of Syntex (USA) Inc. including intellectual property rights were transferred to and vested into the second defendant. On 31st December 2002 the second defendant assigned the said trade mark 'CELLCEPT' to the plaintiff by a Deed of Assignment. On 22nd August 2003 an application was filed by the plaintiff for bringing the name of the plaintiff on record as the proprietor of the said trade mark. On 14th January 20...
Tag this Judgment!Parle Agro Private Limited Vs. Weaver Aqua Everflo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2008
Reported in: LC2009(1)387
A.S. Oka, J.1. This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the plaintiffs in a suit for preventing passing off action.2. According to the case of the plaintiffs, in the year 1992 they adopted a trade mark 'Bailley' for their packaged drinking water. According to the case of the plaintiffs the word 'Bailley' was coined by them and the said word was a fancy word. The plaintiffs commenced sale of the packaged drinking water under the said mark 'Bailley' with effect from January 1993. The case of the plaintiffs is that their packaged drinking water sold and marketed under the mark 'Bailley' very soon became immensely popular. The case of the plaintiffs is that having regard to their reputation, excellent quality of the product, cleanliness and hygienic standards adopted by the plaintiffs and the safety of the product, the plaintiffs' packaged drinking water sold under the mark 'Bailley' became market leader in the packaged drinking water segment. The plaintiffs claim that for the financial...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Rubber Plast Co. Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR53; 2009(111)BomLR585; (2009)221CTR(Bom)652; 2009(234)ELT33(Bom); [2009]16STJ355; [2009]20STT9
S. Radhakrishnan J.1. All the above matters have been referred to us by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, in view of conflicting decisions of two Division Benches on the issue of whether this Court is empowered to condone the delay in filing the Appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which are filed beyond the prescribed period of 180 days.2. One Division Bench in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Sujog Fine Chemicals (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sujog Fine Chemicals case for brevity sake), by a Judgment and order dated 13th August, 2008 held that in the light of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act 1963, in any Appeal filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, this Court is empowered under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay.3. Whereas another Division Bench in a group of cases in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Shruti Colorants Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shruti Colorants Limited case for brevity sake), by a Judgment an...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: India Value Fund Advisors P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2008
Reported in: [2009]149CompCas115(Bom)
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition is presented under Sections 100 to 105 read with Section 78 of the Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, praying for approval of this Court for the proposed reduction of share capital of the petitioner-company as resolved by the board of directors of the company in special resolution passed in extraordinary meeting held for the purpose on November 26, 2008, as permitted by Article 5 of the articles of association of the petitioner-company. The procedure prescribed under Section 101(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, is dispensed with in this matter, in view of the averments made in affidavit-in-support of Company Application No. 1680 of 2008.2. The petition is admitted.3. It is asserted by the petitioner-company in affidavit-in-support of the company application as well as in this present petition that there is no diminution of liability ; and the reduction is not adverse to its creditors/ public in general. In my opinion, it would be just and proper to call ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »