Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-23-2004
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
Decided on : Mar-29-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)ALLMR31; 2004(4)MhLj1
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J. 1. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed by the appellant (original defendant No. 2) seeks to challenge the order dated 22nd January, 2004 passed by a learned Single Judge on Notice of Motion No. 68 of 2002 filed by the original plaintiff who is respondent No. 1 herein. Suit No. 29 of 2002 is filed by respondent No. 1 as a dispossessed person under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to recover possession of the immovable property concerned. In that Suit, he had taken out the above Notice of Motion wherein prayer (a) was that pending disposal of the Suit, the High Court Receiver be appointed the Receiver of the property being front side Ground Floor Bungalow admeasuring about 1500 sq. feet situated at Gupta Bhavan Nos. 166, 167, N.A. No. 18-B, Gundavali Village, Andheri (East) Mumbai ('the said property' for short) and for a further direction to the Receiver to take possession of the said property and to put the plaintiff in possession the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-01-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)MhLj1132
ORDERV.C. Daga, J. 1. The applicant/appellant has filed this first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27th February, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Palghar, Dist. Thane, restraining the applicant/ appellant/ original defendant by perpetual order of injunction from in any manner infringing respondents/ plaintiffs' copyright i.e. original artistic work, namely, the label PRINCE SANTRA by copying or reproducing the same or publishing or using the aforesaid original artistic work and label or any colourable imitation thereof by using the label of No. 1 TANGO SANTRA and also granting ancillary reliefs in terms of impugned order. The Facts :2. The facts of the case leading to the impugned Judgment and decree are that the appellant is carrying on business, inter alia; as manufacturers of country liquor under various trade labels. Respondent No. 1 is also carrying on business of manufacturing country liquor having its factory at village Aswa, taluka Dahanu, district- T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-17-2004
Reported in : 2006(199)ELT583(Bom)
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Mr. V. Shreedharan the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.A. Desai, the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents.2. The petitioner obtained Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) for import of various hospital equipments under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. The CDECs certified the petitioner covered by the para 2 of the hospitals specified in the table annexed to the Ministry of Finance notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 13-1-1988. The said CDECs were cancelled/withdrawn by the Director General of Health Services on 14-11-2000 on the ground that the petitioner failed to fulfil the conditions of para 2(b) of the aforesaid notification. The petitioner then made a representation to the Minister of Health and Welfare on 24-9-2003 for categorisation of the petitioner under para 1 of the table of the said notification. The said representation came to be rejected by the Director General of Health Services vide order dated 18-3-2004. In the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-28-2004
Reported in : 2005(2)ALLMR268; 2005(1)MhLj1059
S.U. Kamdar, J. 1. C.A. No. 5922 of 2004 : By the present civil application, the applicants/respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are seeking early disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal. Civil Application is granted. Appeal is taken up hearing forthwith.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The present appeal is arising out of the order dated 10th March, 1992 passed by the Single Judge. By the impugned order dated 10th March, 1992, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition as abated. According to the learned Single Judge, there was delay in filing the application for bringing legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 3 on record and in view thereof, application for condonation of delay has been refused and the petition has been dismissed.3. The main petition was filed challenging the order dated 4th July, 1991 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. l/B-109/89 confirming the order dated 10th September, 2004 passed by the Tahsildar. Some of the facts of the present case a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-22-2004
Reported in : [2004]121CompCas523(Bom); (2004)3CompLJ304(Bom); [2004]54SCL461(Bom)
Anoop V. Mohta, J.Introduction :1. Global competitiveness :'The integration of the manufacturing and other facilities of the cement business of the petitioner-company into the resulting company and the eventual acquisition of management control of the resulting company by Grasim, will contribute to enhanced global competitiveness for the resulting company, thereby increasing its ability to compete in domestic and international markets. Increased competitiveness would contribute to the enhancement of future business of the petitioner-company and thereby contributing to the wealth of the shareholders of the petitioner-company.'2. The scheme of arrangement in question is revolving around the above objective of the companies.3. This is a company petition under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act in the matter of a scheme of arrangement between Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (for short 'L & T' or 'demerged company' or 'petitioner-company' or 'transferor company') and Ultra Tech Cemco Ltd. (for s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-25-2004
Reported in : (2005)107BOMLR926
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard. Admit. With consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. 2. This letters patent appeal arising from the judgment of this Court (Single Bench) in Writ Petition No. 153/99 raises an important question of law for our consideration, namely :-'Whether the termination of service of a Central Government employee by invoking the powers under the applicable Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution is required to be examined on the touch-stone of Articles 311, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, or, on the ground of failure to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?'Writ Petition No. 153/99 was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal II on 18th June, 1998 in Reference No. CGIT-2/39/1986 and by the said order the present respondent No. 2/employee was directed to be reinstated with continuity in service and with ful...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-01-2004
Reported in : 2005(3)BomCR446; 2005(3)MhLj484
Rohee K.J., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, respondent No. 1 in person and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 in both the Letters Patent Appeal.2. The appellant/original non-applicant No. 2 preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 115 of 1996 against the judgment dated 5-9-1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 177 of 1984, by which M.C.A. No. 249 of 1983 was remanded to the District Court for fresh consideration and decision. Letters Patent Appeal No. 56 of 1998 has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 23-3-1998 passed by the Single Judge in First Appeal No. 476 of 1997 directing that the First Appeal be heard with Letters Patent Appeal No. 115 of 1996.3. The facts which are relevant for the purposes of the present appeal are that respondent No. 1/original applicant preferred an application under Section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as C.N.C. Act for brevity) for mandatory injunct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-08-2004
Reported in : [2004]136STC196(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In these three references relating to financial years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, has referred common questions of law for the decision of this Court under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('the BST Act', for short).2. Since the issues raised in all these references are common, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.3. The common questions of law referred by the Tribunal under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act in all these references are as follows :Sales Tax Reference Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 19991. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the sales of 'pathological diagnostics reagents' are covered by the residuary entry 102 of Part II of Schedule C to the Act and not covered by purview of entry 24 of Part I of Schedule 'C' ?2. That whether the Tribunal is justified in discarding all the evidence placed on record by the applicant ?4. It was the contention of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-16-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)ALLMR896; 2004(5)BomCR50; 2004(4)CTC241; 2004(3)MhLj706
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The Division Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice by order dated January 15, 2004 passed in the present Letters Patent Appeal observed that the decision of the Division Bench of this court (Goa Bench) in Shri Chandreshwar Bhuthanath Devasthan of Paroda v. Subiraj Prabhakar Naik and Ors., 2003 Vol 105(2), Bombay Law Reporter, 915 deserves reconsideration.2. The present Letters Patent Appeal presented on January 6, 2004 is directed against the order dated December 18, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge summarily dismissing the First Appeal arising out of the suit for possession filed on September 9, 1992.3. In Chandreshwar Bhuthanath the Division Bench of this court (Goa Bench) held that Section 100A as substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 shall have retrospective effect and summarised its reasoning thus:'46. We are summarising our reasonings as follows for our conclusion that the aforesaid C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2002, perta...
Tag this Judgment!