3 Important Calcutta High Court Judgments Pronounced Today [Wednesday, October 3, 2018]

1. Shambhu Nath & Brothers v. Imran Khan

Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 62 - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 17, 134 - Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - On comparison of the said two marks and having regard to the field of activity and the nature of the products, there cannot be any doubt that the mark "SNJ TOOFAN" is deceptively similar to the mark "TOOFAN" already registered in favour of the petitioners. In fact, the marks of the petitioners are infringed by user of the said infringing marks which clearly shows the dishonest intention of the said respondent to ride on the reputation of the petitioners. That the respondent is seeking to pass off his goods as that of the petitioners is prima facie established. The balance of convenience is also in favour of passing an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, there shall be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition.

Case Number : G.A. No.1267 of 2018 03-10-2018

Bench : Soumen Sen, J.

2. Yasmin Khalique v. Mukhtar Alam

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 4, 9, 14, and 16 - the petitioners have made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience and inconvenience also lies in their favour for obtaining interim production. Accordingly, there shall be a order of injunction restraining the respondent whether by himself or through his agents or assignees or nominees or otherwise however from running a parallel business of manufacturing or dealing with or selling " Musa Ka Gul" or "Tobaco Gul", by the name of M/S M. S. Industries or in any manner whatsoever until the publication of the arbitral award. The respondent is also restrained from making any false allegation or writing any frivolous letter to any statutory authority or to any person whosoever affecting the business of the petitioner no. 3 firm, until publication of the arbitral award.

Case Number : A.P. No. 282 of 2018 03-10-2018

Bench : Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.

3. Sifandros Carrier Ltd. v. Lmj International Ltd.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 15, 16, 48 - English Arbitration Act, 1996 - Sections 15, 17, 18, 57 - Arbitral Tribunal - Procedure for appointment of arbitrartors - Enforceability of a Foreign Award - Power in case of default to appoint sole arbitrator - Correction of award or additional award - Power in case of default to appoint sole arbitrator - Whether a common award passed by two arbitrators would be invalid in light of section 11(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act, which provides for appointment of a third arbitrator who shall preside over the arbitration in case the tribunal consist of two arbitrators.

Case Number : G.A. No.514 of 2017 03-10-2018

Bench : Soumen Sen, J.

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - 8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...

Anticipatory Bail in Attempt to Murder Cases (Section 307 IPC) : What is Important to Note [Case Law]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Grant of Anticipatory Bail - While considering the application under Section 438, the Court has to see the nature and gravity of the accusation and the antecedents of the applicant which includes whether he has been previously undergone imprisonment on conviction in respect of any cognizable offence, the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice and whether the accusation has been made with an object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. [Para 12]

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog