Court : Mumbai
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. This Commercial Appeal is filed by the Appellant-Original Defendant against the Judgment and order dated 6 June 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge of the Commercial Division in Summons for Judgment whereby, refused an unconditional leave to defend and has granted a leave to defend, but conditional. Preliminary objection to the maintainability of Commercial Appeal. 2. To decide the preliminary objection of the maintainability of Commercial Appeal as filed, as raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents, though the parties have consented to hear the Appeal on merits, we have relisted the matter for hearing on the maintainability as it goes to the root of the matter in view of the confusion prevailing in the Office/Registry after the transfer of such pending summary suits because of the provisions of The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (for short, The Commercial Courts Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By these two petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Act ), both the petitioners have impugned part of the arbitral award dated 6th December 2011. By consent of the parties, both the arbitration petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these arbitration petitions are under:- 2. The petitioner in Arbitration Petition No.341 of 2012 was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings whereas the petitioner in Arbitration Petition No.1017 of 2012 was the original claimant. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the aforesaid proceedings are described as they were described in the arbitral proceedings in the later part of this judgment as the claimant or the original respondent as the case may be. 3. The claimant is engaged in the business inter alia of operating private FM Radio Stations in various cities in pursuance of the lic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
G.S. Patel J. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction........................................................................ 4 II. Constitutional and Legislative Framework........................... 8 III. Facts in the Monsanto Petition ..........................................14 IV. Submissions and Findings in Monsanto............................... 20 V. Facts in the Subway Petition ............................................. 50 VI. Submissions and Findings in SubwaY...................................53 VII. Conclusion.........................................................................65 I. INTRODUCTION 1. These two Writ Petitions came to be tagged together presumably because they both raise issues of whether, in respect of the transactions that arise in each, the Petitioners are liable to a levy of service tax or sales tax. As it turns out, the facts are materially distinct; and as the following judgment shows, the two cases seem to us to be mirror images of each other: if one fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. This is a suit in trade mark infringement and passing off in relation to I shall use as neutral a description as I am able window films for sun protection. Garware ( Garware ) claims that the Defendants ( 3M Co and 3M India , respectively; collectively, 3M ) use of the expression SUNCONTROL or SUN CONTROL in their mark in relation to polyester or plastic films used for this purpose infringes its device marks SUN CONTROL, SUN CONTROL CLASSIC, SUNCONTROL, and GARWARE SUNCONTROL, all registered in Class 17, and SUN CONTROL CLASSIC, registered in Class 16. 2. Garware manufactures and sells a range of polyester and plastic films, including reflective, non-reflective, safety, privacy, specialty and decorative films. It manufactures dyed polyester films using a process for which it has a patent in 15 countries. Its first plant was established in Aurangabad in 1976. Garware has won many awards and received recognition for excellence in innovation. In 1982, Garware adopted the marks SUN CONT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
GENERAL 1. These are four Notices of Motion under Order 39 Rule 2A and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ). All are filed by the Plaintiff ( CTR ), alleging that the Defendant ( Sergi ) is in repeated and contumacious breach of restraint orders passed in CTR s patent infringement suit. This common judgment disposes of all four Notices of Motion. 2. I heard Mr. Seervai for CTR and Mr. Chagla for Sergi at some length. They took me through this record; no easy task, I might add, for not only do the Notices of Motion overlap, but they are also tied hand and foot to, and share a history with, CTR s principal Notice of Motion No. 497 of 2014 for injunctive relief. That Notice of Motion is now separated from this group, since I decided it by a judgment dated 23rd October 2015. There, I held for CTR and against Sergi on the issue of infringement of CTR s patent, one that relates to an explosion and fire detection technology for use in electrical transformers. Sergi is in appeal. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the record of the decision Annexure I-4 to the writ petition and after scrutinising the legality, validity and correctness thereof to quash and set aside the same. The next relief is that of issuance of a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing respondent No.1 to forthwith and/or in such time as this court deems fit and proper to issue in favour of the petitioners a certificate styled as "A" certificate in respect of the film "Udta Punjab", without the same being subjected to any of the cuts/conditions set out in the said decision. 3. This writ petition was placed before us on 8th June, 2016. It was adjourned to 9th Jun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.S. Oka, J. 1. As per the administrative order dated 17th November 2015 passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, this group of Petitions has been specifically assigned to this specially constituted Bench. OVERVIEW 2. The challenge in this group of Petitions is to various provisions of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 (for short Animal Preservation Act ) as amended by the Maharashtra Animal Preservation(Amendment)Act,1995 (for short the Amendment Act ). The Amendment Act received the assent of the Hon'ble President of India on 4th March 2015. By the Amendment Act, in addition to existing prohibition on the slaughter of cows, a complete prohibition was imposed on slaughter of bulls and bullocks in the State. A ban was imposed on possessing the flesh of cow, bull or bullock slaughtered within and outside the State. Moreover, by introducing Section 9B, at the trial of certain offences, a negative burden was put on the accused. 3. Before we deal with the facts of each P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Rule in each of these petitions. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. Learned counsel for the parties state and agree that common issues of law and fact arise in this batch of petitions and therefore, it would be appropriate, if this batch of petitions is disposed of by common judgment and order. For the sake of convenience, reference will be made to the facts and circumstances of Writ Petition No. 8235 of 2014. 3. In all these petitions, challenge is to the orders dated 1 August 2014 made by the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Pune Division (respondent no.4) allowing the appeals instituted by respondent no.1 in each of these petitions and directing the petitioner to enroll respondent no.1, in each of these petitions, to membership of the petitioner-society with effect from 8 December 2009. The orders dated 1 August 2014 shall hereinafter be referred to as impugned orders . 4. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By a brief order dated 29th April, 2016, we directed as under:- "For the reasons separately recorded, we reduce the period of suspension from 13th April, 2016 till 30th April, 2016, both days inclusive. The petitioners can commence their practice from 1st May, 2016." 2. Here are our brief reasons. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge an order of the Maharashtra Medical Council dated 13th April, 2016. By this order, the said council has directed removal of the names of the petitioners for a period of three months from the date of the order. Thus, their names stand removed from the Medical Register, which the Council maintains in terms of section 20 of the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965 (for short "the MMC Act"). 4. The petitioners are doctors and residing at the addresses mentioned hereinabove. The first respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The second respondent and the third respondent govern a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. All these Writ Petitions have been admitted by this Court. The first four petitions have been filed by the employees and the last petition has been filed by the Sugar Factory at issue. For the sake of clarity, the worker petitioners would be referred to as the "Employees" and the employer would be referred to as the "Factory". 2. In all these petitions, the judgment impugned is dated 6.5.1997, delivered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 2 of 1996 involving 64 employees, 3 of 1996 involving 6 employees, 4 of 1996 involving 74 employees and 5 of 1996 involving 66 employees. 3. These matters were argued by the learned Advocates for the respective sides on 14.1.2016, 15.1.2016, 28.1.2016, 4.2.2016, 9.2.2016, 11.2.2016, 16.2.2016, 18.2.2016, 24.2.2016, 25.2.2016, 1.3.2016 and 14.3.2016, when the matter was closed for judgment. 4. I have considered the extensive and lengthy submissions of the learned Advocates for the employees, the learned Sr. Advocate for the m...
Tag this Judgment!