Trademark Infringement: Puma Roars to turn the tables in a judgment passed by EUIPO

ACHPAL @ RAMSWAROOP Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 167(2) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 r/w Section 149 – Compulsory bail – Grant – Charge sheet filed well within time – Filing not been in terms with order passed by High Court which directed investigation to be conducted by Superior Gazetted Police Officer, papers were returned to IO – Public prosecutor had not informed High Court that period for investigation was coming to close at time of order – As matter of fact there was no paper of investigation before concerned Magistrate on completion of 90 days – Mere submission of Public Prosecutor not to be taken to be order granting extension – Appellant directed to admitted to bail. B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 167(2) and 173(8) Investigation – Extension of period – Provisions of Code do not empower anyone to extend period within which investigation must be completed nor does it admit of any such eventuality – There are enactments such as Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 and Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 which clearly contemplate extension of period and to that extent those enactments have modified provisions of Code including Section 167 – In absence of any such similar provision empowering Court to extend period of investigation, no Court could either directly or indirectly extend such period.

Abhay Manohar Sapre and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.

24/9/2018   View judgement PDF 

JAI SINGH Vs. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 – Deemed to be University – Technical education – AICTE Regulation do apply to deemed to be university – Deemed to be university not justified to introduce any new course in technical education without approval of ACITE – Petitioners having enrolled themselves in 2004 and 2005 covered by directions issued by Supreme Court in decision reported (2018)1 SCC 468. This petition dismissed.

Abhay Manohar Sapre and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.

24/9/2018   View judgement PDF 

SIKAR KENDRIYA SAHKARI BANK LIMITED Vs. BHAGIRATH SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS.

Re-instatement after termination – Seniority – Division Bench without hearing appellant bank directed regularisation, seniority and consequential benefits to respondent employee – Bank suffered adverse order – Bank was entitled for hearing in writ appeal – Order set aside – Matter remanded to Division Bench to decide afresh on merit.

Abhay Manohar Sapre and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.

24/9/2018   View judgement PDF 

M/S EMPEE DISTILLERIES LIMITED Vs. M/S GIMPEX PRIVATE LTD

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 37 Rule 5. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 04.06.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Original Side Appeal (Commercial Division) No.155 of 2018 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein and confirmed the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in Application No.2527 of 2018 in Application No.2215 of 2018 in C.S. (Comm.Div.) No.161 of 2018. The Appeal disposed of.

Abhay Manohar Sapre and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.

24/9/2018   View judgement PDF 

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SAYYED HASSAN SAYYED SUBHAN

Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006, Sections 26 and 30. First Information Reports (FIRs) were registered for transportation and sale of Gutka/Pan Masala for offences punishable under Sections 26 and 30 of the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the `FSS Act\’) and Sections 188, 272, 273 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the `IPC\’). The Respondents in the above appeals filed Criminal Writ Petitions and Criminal Applications in the High Court of Bombay for quashing the FIRs. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the Respondents and declared that the Food Safety Officers can proceed against the Respondents under the provisions of Chapter X of the FSS Act. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Maharashtra is before us. The Appeals disposed of.

S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.

20/9/2018   View judgement PDF 

GHEWARCHAND AND ORS. Vs. M/S. MAHENDRA SINGH AND ORS.

Indian Limitation Act, 1963. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 04.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.52 of 1997 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents(defendants) and set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3 Jodhpur in Civil Suit No.135 of 1995(146/1978) and dismissed the suit filed by the appellants(plaintiffs) as barred by time. The Appeal allowed.

Abhay Manohar Sapre and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

20/9/2018   View judgement PDF 

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION JAIPUR Vs. PHOOL CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS.

Constitution of India, Article 142. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 12.02.2008 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.912 OF 1998 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld the order dated 14.07.1998 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5534 of 1996. The Appeal allowed.

Abhay Manohar Sapre and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

20/9/2018   View judgement PDF 

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. B.N. RAMALINGASWAMY

Land Acquisition & Requisition Matters : Matters challenging compensations. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 05.09.2007 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 3390 of 2005(LA) whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the appellant herein and affirmed the order dated 06.07.2005 of the Single Judge in Writ Petition No.28293 of 1991. The Appeal allowed.

Abhay Manohar Sapre and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

20/9/2018   View judgement PDF 

M.L.SINGLA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 23.08.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.16286 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1- Bank and quashed the award dated 30.05.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi in I.D. No.103/98. The Appeal dismissed.

Abhay Manohar Sapre and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

20/9/2018   View judgement PDF 

MUNI REDDY Vs. C.NAGARAJU

Ordinary Civil Matters : Others. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 02.01.2008 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Second Appeal No.804 of 2001 whereby the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2001 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural Dist., Bangalore. The Appeal disposed of.

Abhay Manohar Sapre and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

20/9/2018   View judgement PDF