Court : Mumbai
1. The Petitioners (œPlaintiffs?) have filed the present Suit, inter alia, for infringement of its registered trademarks being œUltraTech Cement? and/or marks, the essential feature whereof is 'UltraTech', as more particularly set out in the Plaint, and for passing off. 2. For the sake of convenience, the Petitioners shall hereinafter be referred to as œthe Plaintiffs? and the Respondents as œthe Defendants?. 3. According to the Plaintiffs, this Court has jurisdiction to grant reliefs for infringement of trademarks in view of the fact that the Plaintiffs carry on business within the jurisdiction of this Court and Plaintiff No.1 has its Registered Office and Plaintiff No.2 has its Corporate Office within the jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly, the Defendants do not carry on business nor do they have any place of business within the jurisdiction of this Court. In view thereof, the Plaintiffs are, by the present Petition, seeking leave under Clause XIV of the L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2001Bom229; 2001(2)ALLMR444; 2001(2)BomCR566; (2001)1BOMLR676
S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. In the above Writ Petition, the Petitioners are challenging the Third variation of Town Planning Scheme, being Santacruz Town Planning - II, which variation was notified on 8th July, 1998 and finally the same was sanctioned on 22nd September, 1999. 2. The brief backdrop of the case is that on 1st October, 1922 the Santacruz Town Planning - II Scheme came into force- At that time Dorabji Pestonji Seervai was the original owner of Plots 77-C and 78-B, admeasuring approximately 54,633 sq. yards. It appears that in the year 1944, by way of first variation to the said Scheme the said Dorabji Pestonji Seervai was allotted final Plot Nos. 94 and 83 in place of the original Plot Nos. 77-C and 77-B. In or about 1943. Plot No. 83 came to be sub-divided viz. Plot Nos. 83-A and 83-B. Plot No. 83-A admeasuring approximately 13,712 sq. mtrs. was sold to the Chinais and Plot No. 83-B admeasuring approximately 13,719 sq.mtrs. was retained by the said D. P. Seervai. 3. Thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1947Bom370; (1947)49BOMLR160
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings and raises one short question of law under Section 59(1) (a) of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act (Bom. VII of 1925). The Urban Bank at Muddebihal obtained an award against the appellant and five other persons under Section 54 of the Societies Act. A dispute having arisen between the bank and the said persons it was referred for decision to a nominee of the Registrar, and the award in question was passed by him on September 21, 1930. Under the award the debtors were directed to pay Rs. 451-3-0 with future interest at 121/2 per cent. per year on Rs. 270. Under Section 59 (1) (a) a certificate was issued by the Registrar on October 25, 1930, and the bank put the said award into execution by filing darkhast No. 196 of 1932 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Muddebihal. This darkhast was filed on February 19, 1932, but since no steps were taken by the bank to pay the requisite process fee for the warrant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(3)BomCR169; 1997(3)MhLj444
ORDERR.G. Deshpande, J.1. The questions those need to be decided in the present matter are, as to whether the City Civil Judge, Bombay is subordinate to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division and, whether was the Civil Judge, Senior Division right in transferring a decree for execution to City Civil Court, Bombay under section 39(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.2. In nutshell, the facts of the case can be narrated as under :---The present petitioner-Ramchandra, filed Special Civil Suit No. 54/1992 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, naturally against the respondent-Chander Sharma. The learned Civil Judge, Senior, Division, Ahmednagar, who dealt with the matter, by his Judgement and order dated 5th December 1996 decreed the suit and necessary decree was drawn. To get the said decree executed, Special Darkhast No. 61/97 was initiated at the instance of the petitioner-decree holder. The total amount due on the date of the execution petition was Rs. 17,91,154/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. These two references under the then Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the BST Act) seek an answer and opinion of this Court on the following questions of law, which have been formulated by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal. 2. In Sales Tax Reference No. 16 of 2003, on 12th September, 2003, the Tribunal has referred the questions set out herein below: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the amount of Rs.8,34,781/- as per hire purchase agreement dated 7.2.1996 hire financed in favour of Shri. Ajit Singh Bhimrao was liable to tax under Section 8 of the B.S.T. Act, 1959? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that an amount of Rs.3,27,601/- out of Rs.8,34,781/- which were option money, insurance charges for 3 years and hire premium recovered from Shri. Ajit Singh Bhimrao formed part of the Sale Pri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1943Bom196; (1943)45BOMLR384
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a petition for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in rather peculiar circumstances.2. An application was made under Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, challenging the validity of an arbitration agreement, which application was dismissed by Mr. Justice Kania sitting on the Original Side of this High Court. An appeal was brought from his order, but having regard to the provisions of Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, which directs that an appeal shall lie from the orders passed under certain sections of the Act (and from no others), and having regard to the fact that Section 33 is not one of the sections mentioned in Section 39, this Court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. But under Sub-clause (2) of Section 39 it is provided :Nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to His Majesty in Council.That proviso saves any existing right of appeal to His Majesty in Council, but clearly d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR243
Tarapoerwala, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs allege that for several years prior to 1914, they had manufactured and sold under the names of ' Sanatogen ' and ' Formamint ' certain chemical compounds for use in medicine and pharmacy, that within a short time the said compounds sold under the name of Sanatogen and Formamint acquired a very high reputation throughout India and the sales thereof were large and profitable and the names of Sanatogen and Formamint had come to mean chemical compounds of the plaintiffs' manufacture. They further allege that on the outbreak of the War the said compounds were imported into India by the plaintiffs' London firm until the property and assets of the plaintiffs' London firm were sold in June 1917 by the controller appointed under the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act 1916 to Genatosan Limited, that from and after June 1917, the said Genatosan Limited imported the said compounds under the names of Sanatogen and Formamint, that on the termination...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1943Bom12; (1942)44BOMLR819
Macklin, J.1. These three appeals arise out of two suits brought by one Ganesh Ramchandra and a third suit brought by the family of Laxman, who was Ramchandra's brother. Each suit was for a declaration of the right of the plaintiff to a half share in certain property alleged to belong to the family of which Ramchandra and Laxman were the two eldest members; and for a proper understanding of them it is necessary to set out the facts at some length.2. Ramchandra and Laxman went to Bombay from the Ratnagiri district more than fifty years ago and worked at the Mint; and though Laxman appears to have been the more able of the two and to have earned more money and had a better head for business, they both managed to save a certain amount of money, and they kept three joint accounts with three different banks in Bombay. Laxman, as the better business man of the two, was given a power-of-attorney by Ramchandra; and it seems that the practice of the brothers was that when any transactions affec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR35; 2008(3)ARBLR204(Bom); 2008(4)BomCR594; (2008)110BOMLR852; 2008(4)MhLj238
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This First Appeal filed under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act) challenges the judgment and order dated 16/6/2007 delivered by learned District Judge, Nagpur in Misc. Civil Application No. 531 of 2003 whereby the learned District Judge has allowed application under Section 34 thereof filed by present Respondent. Appellant had stated that controversy herein is covered by the judgment dated 23/12/2005 in First Appeal No. 601/2005 and hence both parties had agreed to address the court finally at the stage of admission itself. On one date, Respondent stated that another matter vide F.A. No. 284/2007 between parties involving similar point was already closed for judgment and therefore it was thought fit to await such judgment. The said Appeal was decided on 20/12/2007. In the meanwhile record & proceedings from Court of District Judge were called for and thereafter, parties were heard on 11th, 12th and 13th Februar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)ILLJ371Bom
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Both these Petitions can be disposed of by a common order since the parties to both these Petitions have challenged the common order which is passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 43/2002.2. The Industrial Court partly allowed the Reference and directed the appropriate Government to take necessary action under Sections 10(1), (2)(a) to (d) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970] (hereinafter referred to as 'CLRA Act') within a reasonable period. The Tribunal held that the contract which was entered into between the Contractor and the Company was not sham and bogus but was a genuine contract. However, on the basis of other material on record, it directed the appropriate Government to take necessary action under the aforesaid provisions of the CLRA Act.3. Being aggrieved by the directions given by the Industrial Court to the appropriate Government to take action under the provisions of Section 10(1)(2)(a) to (d) of the CLRA Act, th...
Tag this Judgment!