✦ Bombay High Court · 10 Jul 2007

Al-Saif International (India) v. Pedilite Industries Limited

Criminal Application No. 2146 of 2007B H MARLAPALLE

Case at a glance

Judgment

Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr. Gautam Hiranandani for petitioners. Mr. Kewal M. Barsagade for respondent no.1. Mr. D.R. More, APP for respondent no.2. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : July 10, 2007. Date : July 10, 2007. Date : July 10, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard Mr. Mundargi the learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Gautam Hiranandani for the applicant-company and Mr. Kewal Barsagade the learned counsel for the respondent no.2. . The respondent no.2 has filed C.C. No. 85/P/2003 for the offences punishable under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 and under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 as well as Section 420 read with Section 511 of IPC. In :2: this application filed by the accused, they have prayed for quashing of the proceedings in the said criminal case. . During the pendency of this application, the parties have arrived at a settlement and a memorandum of settlement is signed between the parties. The respondent no.1 has filed an affidavit stating that it has no objection for quashing the proceedings of the pending criminal case before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court at Esplanade, Bombay. . As the matter has been settled between the parties amicably and the original complainant has given consent for closing the criminal case initiated by him on account of the settlement as per the affidavit referred to hereinabove, the application is allowed and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 85/P/2003 are hereby quashed and set aside by mutual consent. :3: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Copy Right Act, 1957 — s. 63; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 — ss. 78, 79; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 420, 511.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 10 Jul 2007. The bench was B H MARLAPALLE.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Application No. 2146 of 2007). ← Search more judgments