Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-08-1938
Reported in : AIR1939Bom46; (1938)40BOMLR1211
Rangnekar, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Barlee by which the learned Judge held that the appeal was out of time when it was filed in the District Court against the decree made by the Joint Subordinate Judge of Nasik. The material dates are as follows : On November 11, 1932, the appellant obtained a decree on a mortgage-bond in his favour, but part of his claim was rejected by the Subordinate Judge. He appealed from that part of the decision on December 23, 1932. It is clear, therefore, on the face of it that the appeal was barred. The period of thirty days allowed under Article 152 of the Indian Limitation Act for filing an appeal expired on December 11, 1932. That day, however, was a Sunday and on the next day, that is on December 12, the appellant applied for copies. The copies were ready on December 22, and he filed his appeal on. December 23. The District Judge held that the time had expired and dismissed the appeal. This decision was conf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-11-1938
Reported in : AIR1938Bom413; (1938)40BOMLR661
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Somjee which raises a pure point of law.2. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of a design registered under the Indian Patents and Designs Act of 1911, which is for use on textile goods. The design was registered on April 2, 1936, and accordingly, under Section 47 of the Act, the plaintiffs have copyright in the design for five years from that date. 3. A firm of merchants in Bombay called M.S. Mustak & Co. admittedly handed over to the defendants, who are a Japanese firm with an office in Bombay, a design which infringed the plaintiffs' copyright. The object of Mustaks was to have the design placed on textile goods which were to be imported by the defendants from Japan and sold to Mustaks.4. The contract between Mustaks and the defendants, which is exhibit C, makes it clear that they were contracting as principals, that is to say, aa buyers and sellers. Under the contr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-16-1938
Reported in : AIR1939Bom198; (1939)41BOMLR290
Somjee, J.1. The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors under the Indian Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911) inter alia of two designs for printing textile goods. The plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendants who are importers of Japanese printed goods into Bombay for an injunction restraining them from importing textile goods bearing an imitation of the plaintiffs' two designs, for delivery up of the goods bearing the designs or any fraudulent imitation thereof and for damages.2. In the plaint the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had for the purpose of sale applied or caused to be applied to the goods the designs or a fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof knowing that the designs or a fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof had been applied to the goods without the license or consent of the plaintiffs.3. The plaintiffs having alleged that the defendants knowingly and fraudulently infringed their rights to the designs, admitted at the hearing of the suit before me, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-07-1938
Reported in : AIR1939Bom485
Wassoodew, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Surat reversing the preliminary decree passed by the Extra Joint Second Class Subordinate Judge of Surat in a suit for administration and accounts on the ground that the decree was passed without jurisdiction. The appellant is the plaintiff in whose favour the decree was passed in the trial Court. The suit was originally instituted in the Court of the First. Class Subordinate Judge of Surat. There was a Joint First Class Subordinate Judge attached to that Court, and the suit upon its registration was transferred to his Court on February 3, 1930. The Joint First Class Subordinate Judge framed issues on August 11, 1932, and ordered a commission to issue for the examination of certain witnesses on March 9, 1933. At that stage the First Class Sub-ordinate Judge withdrew the suit, and transferred it to the Court of the Extra Joint Second1 Class Subordinate Judge, who ultimately decided it three years thereafter on Jul...
Tag this Judgment!