Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-15-2014
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-28-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. Admit. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge granting the appellant (original defendant) leave to defend the suit filed by the respondent subject to its depositing the rupee equivalent to Euros 11,37,866.30 at the rate as may be applicable on the date of such deposit within eight weeks. 3. The respondent raised indents upon the appellant for supply of certain goods on the terms and conditions contained therein. The same were accepted by the appellant. The documents were to be sent through the respondent's bankers being Dresdner Bank AG to the appellant's bankers being Union Bank of India. Pursuant thereto, the respondent manufactured and supplied the material. The documents were forwarded by the respondent through its bankers being Dresdner Bank AG to the appellant's bankers being Union Bank of India. The documents included the invoices. 4. There...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Aug-26-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 10/08/2006, whereby the reference under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 came to be rejected. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 10.08.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case no.35 of 2002, whereby a reference under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act 1903, came to be rejected. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, by Notification dated 16.03.1992, issued a notice under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act 1903, imposing restrictions specified in Clause (b) of Section 7 of the said Act upon the use and enjoyment of the land situated in the Village of Chicalim, Mormugao Taluka, for creation of a safety zone around Naval Armament Depot, Goa, being land in the vicinity of the Armament Deport in Goa, amongst which was the land surveyed under No.126/1 admeasuring 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-14-2014
Mohit S. Shah, CJ. 1. All these three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India purporting to be public interest litigation, have been filed by the same petitioner - Sambhaji Savakar Jadhav, mainly alleging violation of Guidelines for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), particularly the Guideline imposing 26% Cap on FDI in Insurance Sector. 2. In PIL No.34 of 2013, the petitioner is complaining about alleged violation of FDI Regulations by Future Generali Life Insurance Company Ltd. (Future Generali) and for seeking suspension of its licence and for removing its Directors and members of the Managing Committee. 3. In PIL No.42 of 2013, the petitioner is seeking a direction against Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) to : (i) levy monetary penalty on Future Generali for alleged FDI violation; (ii) to conduct probe into capital structuring by Future Generali and to direct IRDA to withhold its approval to the transaction of stake sale by Future Generali's any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jul-31-2014
1. The Appeals arise out of Judgment of conviction passed against the Appellants-accused (hereafter referred as accused- with numbers as given to them in the trial Court and mentioned above in the cause title) by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No.76 of 1999, on 18th January 2000. The 13 accused were convicted for offence under Section 365 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.). Additionally accused No.13 was convicted for offence under Section 368 of I.P.C. However, trial Court passed order of acquittal of accused Nos. 1 to 13 of offence punishable under Section 363, 364-A read with 34 of I.P.C. For offence under Section 365 of I.P.C. the sentence imposed was of simple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. For offence under Section 368 of I.P.C., sentence imposed was simple imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.1500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-09-2014
1. This is a suit filed for anti-suit injunction restraining the Defendants from proceeding before the Commercial Court in England in respect of the claim filed by them against the Plaintiff herein, being Claim No.2013 Folio 1380. The Notice of Motion seeks an interim order of injunction in the same terms. 2 The Plaintiff is a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of selling and marketing medical products. Defendant No.1 is a company incorporated in England having its registered office at Ashford, Kent. Defendant No.1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing and production of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. Defendant No.2 is an Indian company, said to be a subsidiary of Defendant No.1. 3 By an Exclusive Distribution Agreement dated 16 May 2011 (EDA), the Plaintiff was appointed as an Exclusive Distributor for resale of the products of Defendant No.1 in a defined territory, namely, India, Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives. The Plaintiff was to import and distribute the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-20-2014
P.C.: A. SUMMARY 1. The Plaintiff, a professional film script writer, and whose father wrote scripts and dialogue for notable films, is the author of the film script entitled ONCE. The entirety of this script is annexed to the plaint at Exhibit B. The Plaintiff claims that a recently released film, Dhoom 3, infringes the Plaintiffs copyright in his script ONCE. In the suit, the Plaintiff seeks an order that he be given credit in the titles of the film. 2. The Plaintiff claims that he had delivered this script to 1st Defendants office. Three years later, the film Dhoom 3 was released. The Plaintiff saw the film. He says he then realised that the film and his original script were so similar that the only possibility was that the 1st Defendant and, in particular, Defendant Nos.2 and 3, credited as co-authors of the film script for Dhoom 3 (the 3rd Defendant being the director of the film) had infringed the Plaintiffs copyright in his original work. The Plaintiff then filed the suit. I wil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Jun-11-2014
Oral Judgment: (Ranjit More, J.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. By the present appeal, the appellant is challenging the Judgment and Award dated 31st July, 2007, passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.61/2003. The said land acquisition case was filed under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (the Act for short) for enhancement of the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per sq. metre. The said reference has been rejected by the impugned Judgment and Award. 3. By the notification dated 16th March, 1992, under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi, the restrictions as specified in clause (b) of Section 7 of the Act were imposed upon use and enjoyment of the appellant's land situated in Village Chicalim, Mormugao Taluka, South Goa District being the land in the vicinity of the Naval Armament Depot, Goa. The Land Acquisition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1 The exercise of power by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under section 10-A of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is questioned by the Petitioner by this petition. 2 The Petitioner is a Company engaged in the business of construction. Sometime around the year 2012, Petitioner constructed premises of one Bhartiya Sanskriti Darshan Trust at Kesnand, district Pune. The Petitioner had engaged services of M/s Avinash Construction Company and M/s RMC Readymix (India). On 18 December 2012, an unfortunate incident took place at the construction site. The Centring on the 4th floor collapsed and thirteen persons died. One of them was Shri Prakash Apparao Shelke. 3 The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation exercising powers under section 10-A of the Act issued a notice to the Petitioner. The notice called upon the Petitioner to give particulars of the incident and to make necessary deposit under Section 10-A(2) of the Act, within 30 days. The Petitioner appeared ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on : Dec-17-2014
By these proceedings, the petitioner seeks to question the legality of an order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (Securitisation Act). In the application which was filed before the District Magistrate, the second respondent pleaded that it had extended financial assistance in the amount of Rs.10 lacs to the borrowers who had executed a security agreement on 15 September 2005 against immovable property. The petitioner is a co-borrower. On a default committed by the borrowers, the second respondent stated that it had issued a demand notice on 24 June 2011 under Section 13(2) calling upon the borrowers to repay the entire dues in the amount of Rs.10,69,589/- within 60 days. According to the petitioner, on 1 September 2011, the second respondent affixed a possession notice on the property. The petitioner challenged the possession notice by filing a securitisation app...
Tag this Judgment!