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
Reported in : 2005(3)BomCR191; 2005(30)PTC160(Bom)
D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. The plaintiffs have moved the present Notice of Motion in the suit seeking reliefs in terms of prayers (a) and (b) thereof, inter alia, seeking a restraint order against the Defendants from manufacturing for sale, sell, marketing and exporting their anti cancer drug composed of the 'B-crystalline form of imatinib mesylate salt'' under the brand name 'VEENAT' or any other brand name till such time the exclusive marketing rights granted in favour of the plaintiffs on November 10, 2003 and gazetted on December 13, 2003 subsists. The plaintiffs also seek an order of appointment of a court receiver in terms of prayer (e).2. The plaintiffs submit that they are the holders of Exclusive Marketing Rights (hereinafter referred to 'EMR') granted under Chapter IV-A of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'). Section 24B of the Act deals with grant of EMR.It is submitted that since the plaintiffs have been granted in EMR, akin to a patent right by an expert st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1913)ILR37Bom506
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in the matter of an award made by this Court on appeal from the Court of the District Judge. The proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), and the question raised was as to the value of certain land acquired under that Statute by the Government. It is admitted that the value of the property involved in this application exceeds Rs. 10,000, and it is also admitted that a substantial point of law is involved in this Court's judgment with reference to the position occupied by the Special Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. The difficulty, however, in the way of the applicant is furnished by the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Rangoon Botatoung Company, Ltd. v. The Collector, Rangoon 1912 40 Cal 21. Prima facie, as the learned Advocate General admitted, this decision seems to bar the applicant's right to appeal to the Privy Council. It was sought, however, to es...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1912)14BOMLR1194
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in the matter of an award made by this Court on appeal from the Court of the District Judge. The proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), and the question raised was as to the value of certain land acquired under that Statute by the Government. It is admitted that the value of the property involved in this application exceeds Rs. 10,000, and it is also admitted that a substantial point of law is involved in this Court's judgment with reference to the position occupied by the Special Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. The difficulty, however, in the way of the applicant is furnished by the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in The Rangoon Botatoung Company Limited v. The Collector, Rangoon : (1912)14BOMLR833 . Prima facie, as the learned Advocate General admitted, this decision seems to bar the applicant's right to appeal to the Privy Council. It was sought, how...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)105BOMLR915
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondents as well as the other learned Counsel in the above matter including the learned Advocate General to assist us on the issue as to whether Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which has been amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 will be prospective in operation or retrospective in operation. The aforesaid Amendment was brought into force on 1st July, 2002.2. The only issue which has been argued is whether any of the pending Letters Patent Appeals which have already been admitted by this Court are also covered by the said Section 100A as mentioned hereinabove, in the sense whether pending admitted Letters Patent Appeals survive in view of the aforesaid amendment or not.3. To appreciate the contentions with regard to the above issue, it would be relevant to quote Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which for the first time by this Code of Civil Procedure ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1971)73BOMLR643
S.P. Kotval, C.J.1. This is a petition challenging the proceedings taken for acquisition of the lands of the petitioner. The lauds under acquisition are survey Nos. 34, H. No. 1, S, No. 35, H. No. 5, S. No. 35, II. No. 8 and portions of survey Nos. 53 and 52 in all admeasuring 8 acres and 21 gunthas situated at Panch Pakhadi in Taluka and District Thana. The circumstances which led to the filing of the petition are briefly stated as follows:-A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on July 9, 1960 and published in the Government Gazette on July 21, 1960 with a view to acquiring land for a company, M/s. Voltas Limited. That notification was not on the record but we have allowed the petitioner to present a copy thereof in the course of the arguments before us. Objections were invited, under Section 5A, on July 25, 1960 and filed by the petitioner, on August 30, 1960. The petitioner was then heard and was himself present. This was on October 17, 1960. Accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1991Bom111; 1990(3)BomCR452
1. The petitioner No. 2 are a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act No. VII of 1913and are engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tooth paste, cosmetics and toilet preparations. The petitioner No. 2 was incorporated in the year 1937 as a private company limited by shares. Subsequently, in the year 1978, it was converted into a public limited company and 60% of its capital is held by Indian shareholders, while the balance of 40% is held by petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 Company is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, U.S.A. and also carries on business of manufacture and sale of tooth paste, cosmetics and toilet preparations. The petitioner No. 2 is an Indian Company for the purpose of both the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1971. The petitioner No. 2 are not a Company to which Part 'A' of Chaper III of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 applie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(5)BomCR567; (2002)3BOMLR459; 2002(3)MhLj592
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against an Order passed by the learned Single Judge dated February 1, 2002 in Arbitration Application No. 15 of 2001 making appointment of an Arbitrator.2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Jamdar, a retired Judge of this Court, as an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes and differences between the parties, in the place of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Deshmukh, a retired Chief Justice of this Court.3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.4. It is not in dispute by and between the parties that the case is governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Certain orders passed under the Act were made appealable only under Section 39 of the Act. Section 39 read thus :'39. Appealable orders. -- An appeal shall lie from the following orderspassed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorised bylaw to hear appeals from original decrees of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
MohitS. Shah, CJ. 1. This reference has been made to the Full Bench pursuant to the order dated 13 August 2012 of learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : B.R. Gavai, J.) for considering following question of law: Whether the Court can go into the question of the validity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark at an interlocutory stage when the defendant takes up the defence of invalidity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark in an infringement suit? 2. The learned Single Judge felt the need to make this reference in view of two decisions of the Division Benches of this Court, one holding that the Court can not go into the question of validity of registration of a trade mark when such defence is taken by the defendant at an interlocutory stage in a suit for infringement of registered trade mark (judgment dated 16 February 2005 in M/s. Maxheal Pharmaceuticles v/s. Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Appeal No.88 of 2005 in N.M.No.2663 of 2004 in suit No.2663 of 200...
Tag this Judgment!