Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-26-2010
1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the grant of Patent No.231479 dated 04.03.2009 vide Patent Application No.96/MUM/2005 evidenced by AnnexureU to the petition and the order dated 03.06.2009 (AnnexureZ to the petition).2 The Petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title. It is a pharmaceutical company manufacturing, distributing, marketing and exporting pharmaceutical products particularly active pharmaceutical ingredients and finished dosage forms.3 The Respondent No.1 is also a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office in the State of Gujarat at the address mentioned in the cause title. It filed the above Patent Application which has been allowed by the authorities, who are Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to this Writ Petition.4 It is stated that on 01.02.2005 the Respondent No.1 filed a patent applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-26-2010
Reported in : LC2010(1)356
Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent of parties as pleadings are complete heard forthwith.2. The petitioner filed Patent Application dated October 16,2002 in the office of the Respondent No. 3 which was numbered I4/MUM. The said application claimed priority from Spanish Patent Application No. P200001102 dated April, 19, 2000. Thereafter in accordance with law a request for examination was filed in Form 18 dated March 15, 2005 along with the prescribed official fee which was taken on record by the respondent No. 3. The said application was consequently examined by Respondent No. 3 and the first examination report (hereinafter referred as FER) was issued on June 15, 2005.According to the petitioner as per the law prevailing at that time the normal date for placing the application in order for grant was December 15, 2006. The FER contained the objections raised by Respondent No. 3. A considered reply was filed on November 25, 2005. In the application it further set out that no advers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-22-2010
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in relation to assessment year 19992000 raises the following questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Ld CIT (A) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the technical know how fees amounting to Rs. 6,82,00,029/ as revenue expenditure Under Section 37 of the I.T. Act without appreciating the fact that the same was in the nature of capital expenditure being incurred on the acquisition of intangible asset of enduring nature?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the agreement between the assessee company and KMK Lizence Limited was operational in financial year 19971998, even before obtaining the required approval of Government of India on 561998?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-21-2010
Reported in : 2010(112)BomLR1802
ORDERMAHARASHTRA Universities ACT, 1994 -No. Rajabh-2009/(71/09)/VE-2. -- Whereas, the Vice-Chancellor of a University is the principal academic and executive officer of the University, and is responsible for development of the academic programmes and general administration of the University for ensuring efficiency and good order of the University;And whereas, the Vice-Chancellor is required to ensure the highest level of education and encouraging good quality research, collaborative arrangements, extension activities and appropriate technological and infrastructural resource base, etc.And whereas, the Vice-Chancellor is required to shape up the overall personality of the students in line with the National and Social priorities,And whereas, having regard to the position of the Vice-Chancellor as aforesaid, it is expedient to provide a person being appointed shall possess certain qualifications and experience ;Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-08-2010
Shares of several operating companies were transferred by diverse holding companies to HMTL, in consideration for which HMTL issued its own shares to these holding companies. Framework Agreements. The transfer of the CGP share resulted in a transfer of 66.9848% interest in HEL. For income to arise or accrue in India, there must be a right to receive income in India. The share of CGP is situated outside India. (b) The transaction was consummated outside India; (c) The transaction related to transfer of a share outside India, contracted to be delivered outside India and the transfer of which was registered outside India. HTIL held its direct equity interest in HEL amounting to 42.34% through eight Mauritian companies. HTIL's indirect subsidiary, CGPM held 37.25% equity interest in TII, an Indian company which in turn, held a 12.96% equity interest in HEL. The entire income which is derived by HTIL had its source in India and arose or accrued in India. HTIL could transfer its controlling ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-23-2010
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent, Appeal is taken up for hearing forthwith. It is agreed between the parties that the final hearing of the Appeal shall be treated as disposal of Notice of Motion No. 271 of 2010 pending before the learned Single Judge.2. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 4th February 2010 passed in the aforementioned Notice of Motion which was moved by the Appellant original Applicant. The parties to this Notice of Motion are Respondent No. 1original Plaintiff and original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 being Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. Any reference to them as per their original position be understood accordingly.3. The learned Single Judge passed an adinterim order and posted the Notice of Motion for hearing and final disposal. However, the learned Judge directed the Applicant to furnish security to the extent of US $ 7.52 million as a precondition for vacating the order of arrest of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-15-2010
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Admit.The Respondents, in appeal who are not appearing, need not be served afresh. Contesting respondents, are appearing. The Appeals are called out by consent of Advocates for the parties who are contesting / appearing. Heard at length for final disposal.2. Status of the contesting parties in Letters Patent Appeal No. 197 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 5993 of 2005 is as follows:[i] Present respondent Nos. 25 and 26 were the writ petitioners. They are hereinafter referred to as Writ Petitioners.[ii] Present appellant was respondent No. 7. He is hereinafter referred to as Appellant.[iii] Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 239 of 2009 was respondent No. 24 in Writ Petition No. 5993 of 2005.3. Parties are referred to in this Judgment according to their status in the writ petition No. 5993 of 2005 for convenience.Respondent No. 2 0 in the Writ Petition, namely Vaibhav Liquors Pvt. Ltd. is a Private Limited Company, who came into the picture in the working of respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-20-2010
1] This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:- "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare the arbitration Award dated 8 July 2009 read with 15 March 2010 enforceable as decree of this Hon'ble Court."2] It is submitted by the petitioners that they are a company incorporated in England and carrying on business at the address set out in the cause title. They are inter alia ship owners, ship operators and charterers. Respondent before this Court is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at the address mentioned hereinabove. It carries on business as exporters of Bauxite and other minerals. 3] The petitioner seeks enforcement of a foreign Arbitration Award dated 8th July 2009 and a further award dated 15th March 2010 under which the petitioners have been awarded sums more particularly set out in para 2 of the petition. A copy of the Award in relation to the main dispute and also a copy of the Award in relation to costs is annexed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-25-2010
Shrihari P. Davare, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.2. By consent of the parties, the present criminal revision application is taken up for final hearing, at the stage of admission.3. By present criminal revision application, applicant (original accused) has challenged the judgment and order dated 25.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Aurangabad in criminal misc. application No. 35/2010, thereby rejecting an application of applicant for condonation of delay and depriving him to file appeal against conviction.4. Admittedly, applicant herein was convicted in R.C.C. No. 2156/2007 by the learned 5th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/in default to suffer S.I. for two months. Further, applicant (original accused) ought to have filed appeal, if any, within prescribed period of limitation i.e. o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-29-2010
Reported in : (2010)112BOMLR1479,LC2010(1)313
A.R. Bhangale, J.1. This appeal arises from the order dated 19.11.2009 whereby the Notice of Motion No. 3709 of 2009 in Suit No. 2516 of 2009 has been made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a) to (c). The facts of the case, in brief, are thus:2. The plaintiffs (respondents herein) claimed that plaintiff No. l Mr. Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal, in or about the year 2001 invented a method of producing Oxygen Enriched Packaged Drinking Water and an Apparatus used therefore. The said invention was fully secured by Indian Patent under the Indian Patents Act 1970. Patent No. 204086 was granted under the Patent Certificate dated 26.12.2006 to Shri. Rasiklal Manikchand Dariwal, pursuant to his application bearing No. 254/MUM/2002 dated 15.03.2002. According to plaintiff No. l, in the year 2002 he started processing, marketing and dealing in innovative 'Oxygen Enriched Healthy Packaged Drinking Water' of a Unique Purity and Utility. The plaintiff No. l adopted distinctive mark 'OXYRICH' which...
Tag this Judgment!