Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-02-1997
Reported in : (1998)1CALLT339(HC),[1998(79)FLR588]
P.S. Mishra, C.J. 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of th Letters Patent by the State and Us Officers is preferred against the Judgment in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a single Judge of this court holding in a petition by the petitioner/respondent herein that the order of the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, refusing to renew the licence under section 39 of the Calcutta Police Act. 1866 is not valid and. consequentially, directing the Commissioner of Police to pass a fresh orderafter supplying a copy of the reports that were used for refusing to renew the licence.2. That some orders have been passed against the petitioner/respondent by which she has been denied the renewal of licence on the basis of some materials which were not furnished to her, ex-facle would appear to be violative of principles of natural Justice. It would be too late in the day for any person to say that while exercising power under section 39 of the Police Act, 1866, the Commissione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-01-1997
Reported in : [1998]232ITR467(Cal)
Samaresh Banerjea, J. 1. In the present writ application, the petitioner-company has prayed for, inter alia, a declaration that petitioner No. 1 is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 10(15)(iv)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Admittedly, petitioner No. 1-company is a Medical Diagnostic Centre. Petitioner No. 1-company purchased a nuclear magnetic resonance scanner, Siemens Magnetom P-8, from Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Bmed, D. 8520, Erlangen, Germany, on a part payment and the balance of the amount is to be paid by the petitioner on supplier's credit for five years. The payment is to carry an interest at the rate of 8.1 per cent. per annum. The said rate of interest of 8.1 per cent. per annum was fixed in consultation with the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the interest so payable by petitioner No. 1-company is exempted from income-tax in accordance with the provisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-06-1997
Reported in : (1997)2CALLT92(HC)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The appellant, Allergan Inc, is a company which manufacturers Pharmaceutical products in several countries. It does not carry on any business in India. The first respondent is a company which carries on business of manufacturing pharmaceutical products in Indian. The appellant seeks to restrain the respondents from using the mark 'OCUFLOX' in respect of a medicinal preparation manufactured and marketed by the respondents. The issue to be decided in this appeal is the right of a foreign manufacturer to restrain use of a mark in India on the basis of prior user of the mark outside the country.2. On the material before this Court there can be no doubt that the appellant manufactures a pharmaceutical eye care product under the name of OCUFLOX containing of loxacin and other compounds. Accqrding to the appellant it first used the mark on 9th Sept, 1992 after which it has marketed the product in several countries in Europe, Australia, South Africa and South America and has obt...
Tag this Judgment!