Mumbai Court September 2014 Judgments

Photoquip India Limited Vs. Delhi Photo Store and Another

Court: Mumbai

1. In this copyright infringement action, the Plaintiff seeks by this Notice of Motion an order restraining the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiffs copyright in the artistic works at Exhibits A and B to the plaint. These are technical drawings, and I will return to them in detail shortly. The Plaintiff also claims copyright in the drawings of the moulds or cast of the Plaintiffs product. 2. The products in question are flash lights used in photography. I would imagine that these are not the kind of things that a novice or a casual user might have, but are used in commercial and studio photography by professionals and perhaps by serious enthusiasts. The Defendants products, claimed by the Plaintiff to be the infringing items, are, to my mind, indistinguishable from the Plaintiffs. The Defendants have produced no drawings of their own. Their defence, as I understand it, is that there is no subsisting copyright in the Plaintiffs drawings; that the drawings have no artistic value and...

Court: Mumbai

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Since both sides agree that these Appeals involve common questions, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. For properly appreciating the arguments of the parties, the facts in Central Excise Appeal No.214/ 2013 are referred to. This Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short CESTAT) dated 07.03.2013 in which it has been held that for the period upto 27.02.2010 the Appellants before us are not eligible for refund. 3. The Appeal is ADMITTED on the following substantial questions of law : (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was correct in holding that onsite work undertaken at customers premises of the Appellants does not fulfil the requirement of Service Provided from India contained in first leg of Rule 3(2)(a) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. (b) Whether the CESTAT...

S.A. Vitol Vs. Bhatia International Limited

Court: Mumbai

1. The Applicant is the Award Holder. The applicant has sought execution of the award against the claimant who is the Award Debtor in the above arbitration. The name of the award debtor has been amended in the arbitration. The award debtor was one Bhatia International Ltd (BIL). The award debtor shall be referred to as BIL despite the amendment as it has been so referred to in the award. The applicant shall be referred to as Vitol as it has been referred as such in the award. 2. Vitol has sought to execute the award dated 17th January, 2011 as a Foreign award. The execution application has been taken out on 17th March, 2011, two months after the date of the award. 3. Vitol has taken out the above notice under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 22(b) of the CPC as the execution of the award is filed under the provisions of Section 44A of the CPC; the award having been passed by the arbitral tribunal in reciprocating territory being London, UK. 4. Vitol has taken out this application under ...

Gulab Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai Aurangabad

1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.218/1995, which was pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The appellant is convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under sections 306 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years is given to the appellant and total amount of fine of Rs.1500/- is imposed on him. Both sides are heard. 2. The deceased Sangita was a daughter of complainant. She was given in marriage to appellant about three years prior to the date of incident. It is the case of complainant that after few days of marriage, the deceased had started complaining to him and to relatives on parents side that the husband and his relatives were giving ill-treatment to her. She had disclosed that her husband had asked her to bring Rs.1000/- from her parents as he wanted to purchase bed for him. She had also disclosed that husband was harassing her and even giving beating to her on pe...

Farhat Co-op Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Malkani Enterprises and Others

Court: Mumbai

1. Rule, in both the Petitions, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Writ Petitions, which are cross Writ Petitions, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, take exception to the order dated 6th May, 2013 passed by the Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (3), Mumbai, by which order, the application filed by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.9116 of 2013 for deemed conveyance under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotions of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the MOFA"), came to be allowed and resultantly, the unilateral deemed conveyance/assignment of right, title and interest of the developers in respect of the land being Plot No.B CTS No.68/B, Mauje Bandivali, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai Suburban District, admeasuring 3380.50 sqare meters, came to be granted, h...

Mavani Siddi Sai C.H.S. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Court: Mumbai

P.C. 1. Rule. 2. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Respondents waive service. 4. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 5. The petitioner had filed a complaint against the respondent nos.2 and 3 herein who were mentioned as accused nos.1 and 2, respectively, therein, alleging commission of a number of cognizable offences by them. On this complaint, the learned Magistrate passed an order as contemplated under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pursuant to this order of investigation the police investigated into the matter and filed a final report. In the final report, the police submitted that a case for proceeding was made out only against the accused no.1 and that too only in respect of some of the offences mentioned in the complaint/F.I.R. i.e. the offences punishable under Section 447 IPC, 453 IPC, 455 IPC. The police mentioned in the final report that the complaint against the accused no.2 i.e. the respondent no.3 herein was not bonafide and that as he was...

The Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

A.K. Menon, J. 1. The above appeals raise the following common questions of law: (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that two views are possible with regard to the applicability of Section 36(1)(viii)read with Section 41(4A) even though the provisions of Section 36(1)(viii) as amended with effect from 1/4/1997 do not provide any room for interpretation other than the one adopted by the Commissioner of Income Tax in his order passed u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act? 2. These appeals are filed by the revenue pertaining to assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. The common issue that arises pertains to the provisions of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act in terms of which a special reserve could be created by the ...

Damji Ramji Shah Vs. Angela Joseph Montero and Others

Court: Mumbai

Oral Order: 1. By this Appeal, the original defendant no.4 has challenged the Judgment and order dated 1.8.2014 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, in Draft Notice of Motion in L.C.Suit No.2160 of 2014. By that order, the learned Judge directed the defendants not to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit premises till the decision of the Notice of Motion. The parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 2. The matter was heard earlier on 9.9.2014. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order dated 9.9.2014 read as under: "2. Mr. Reis, upon taking instructions from the appellant, who is present in the Court, states that appellant is ready and willing to enter into registered agreement with respondents No.1 to 20 in respect of the permanent alternate accommodation. He has also handed over copies of those agreements to Mr. Khobragade, duly signed by the appellant. Mr. Reis states that appellant is ready and willing to offer Rs.18,000/- per ...

Shailesh Ramanlal Mahimtura Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal. 2. By this application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 17th January, 2014 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Mumbai in Special Case No. 90/2010, by which the applicant's application seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, instituted against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act'), came to be rejected. 3. The short question that arises for determination in the present petition is, whether the applicant can be termed as a 'public servant' within the meaning of Section 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC' Act), in the facts of the present case. 4. The applicant is stated to be a highly qualified and renowned Structural Engineer with expertise of three decades in the said field. He is also stated to have been professionally trained in space analysis and finite element an...

Premanand Ganesh Naik Vs. Dinanath Shankar Gaonkar and Others

Court: Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment: 1. The injured victim has filed this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the Judgment and Award dated 14/16.08.2008 delivered by Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao, in Claim Petition No.235 of 2005. The accident in this case has taken place on 29.05.2005 at about 8.10 p.m. The facts of accident or place of accident is not in dispute. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that claimant sustained fracture injuries and dis-figuration of right eye as also permanent disability. It also held that he established his employment as a bus attendant and wage of Rs.3,700/- per month. While answering the issue about the amount of compensation i.e. issue No.6, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that claimant could not establish his entitlement to compensation of Rs.8,66,545/-. In paragraph 43, it worked out its total entitlement to Rs.3,67,400/-. However, as it held that Appellant could not establish the neg...