Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 14 To November 20, 2022

Nominal Index [Citation 436 – 450] 1. Asma Farid Noorani v. Haji Ali Fresh Fruit Juices and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 436 2. Hemant Baburao Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 437 3. Swapnil Sadhu Kadam v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 438 4. Shemaroo Entertainment Limited v. Saregama India Limited and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 439 5. Arun Gawli v. Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) (East) Nagpur and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 440 6. Mayuri Krishna Jabare v. General Manager, BEST & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 441 7. Pidilite Industries Limited v. Riya Chemy 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 442 8. Bhanudas S/o Ramchandra Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 443 9. JIK Industries Co. Ltd. vs. Maruti Nashik Mene 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 444 11. Kaushlabai wd/o. Ranchoddas Vaishnav v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 445 12. Shantaram B. Dhoble v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 446 13. Dr. Anand Teltumbde v. National Investigation Agency, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 447 14. All India Reporter Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 448 15. Ishwarlal Shankarlal Lalwani v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 449 16. Euro Pratik Sales Corporation v. Union of India and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 450 Reports/Judgments 1. Bombay HC Continues Interim Relief Granted To Mumbai's 'Haji Ali Juice Centre' In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Establishment In Vijaywada Case Title: Asma Farid Noorani v. Haji Ali Fresh Fruit Juices and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 436 The Bombay High Court refused to vacate the ex-parte interim relief granted to Haji Ali Juice Centre in Mumbai in a trade mark infringement suit against Haji Ali Fresh Fruit Juices, an establishment in Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh. Justice Manish Pitale stated that the defendants didn't show that there was any falsehood and suppression of material facts on the part of the plaintiff in not disclosing a prior litigation with the defendants, as the plaintiff could not presume that there was any link between the Vijaywada establishment and the defendants. 2. ''Politically Motivated, Publicity Seeking Litigations': Bombay HC Dismisses Three PILs Against Uddhav Thackeray, Sanjay Raut & NCP Functionary Case Title: Hemant Baburao Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 437 The Bombay High Court dismissed three public interest litigations seeking an investigation against Shiv Sena (UBT) leaders Uddhav Thackeray and Sanjay Raut as well as Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) functionary after noting the pleas were ''politically motivated and publicity seeking litigations''. A division bench of Justices S V Gangarpurwala and S G Dige dismissed three PILs stating, "We do not find any details in the allegations…no documents. We cannot direct a roving and fishing inquiry". 3. Bombay High Court Asks State's Revenue Dept To Consider Providing E-Stamp Facilities, Licence For New Vendors Case Title: Swapnil Sadhu Kadam v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 438 The Bombay High Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary to Maharashtra Revenue Department to take an appropriate decision on a representation by a practicing advocate seeking allotment of new authorized stamp vendor licenses in Mumbai (especially in Fort area) for the convenience of the public or starting e-stamp facilities like NCR Delhi and other States. The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar did not further examine the matter stating that a policy decision has to be taken by the government. "Whether or not e-stamp facility is to be introduced and/or whether the number of stamp vendors is to be increased are within the exclusive domain of the executive", the court held. The court added that it could not be proper for the court to make any mandatory direction in this case since the petitioner has not specifically denied the State's reply to the PIL. 4. Bombay High Court Restrains Saregama From Infringing Shemaroo's Copyright In 'Disco Dancer' Movie, Allows London Show To Go On Case Title: Shemaroo Entertainment Limited v. Saregama India Limited and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 439 The Bombay High Court temporarily restrained Saregama India Limited from infringing Shemaroo Entertainment Limited's copyright in the Mithun Chakraborty starrer Disco Dancer. Justice Manish Pitale observed that prima facie the intellectual property rights and other theatrical rights of the film were assigned to Shemaroo by producer B Subhash in 2011, prior to a 2019 agreement cited by Shemaroo. "Prima facie, it appears that when defendant No.3 (B Subhash) had already assigned all rights, including intellectual property rights, theatrical rights and ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 14 To November 20, 2022

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags