Sections 63 and 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957, and Section 420 IPC.= The petitioner apprehends arrest in Crime No.894 of 2012 of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957, and Section 420 IPC. 2. The accusation made against the petitioner is that he resorted in selling the fans by using the brand names as if the fans have been manufactured by Bajaj Electricals etc.= The panchas noticed 243 name plates which the petitioner has been using as if the fans manufactured by him are from the reputed companies like Bajaj Electricals etc. Such is the accusation leveled against the petitioner, he does not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Petition No.1073 of 2013

 

Date:20th February, 2013


Between:

Ashok Bermecha S/o.Chandan Mal Barmecha
….Petitioner/Accused
And

The Station House Officer, Police Station Kukatpally, Cyberabad District, through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Respondent/Complainant
***




                                                              

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Petition No.1073 of 2013


ORDER:


The petitioner apprehends arrest in Crime No.894 of 2012 of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957, and Section 420 IPC.

2.     The accusation made against the petitioner is that he resorted in selling the fans by using the brand names as if the fans have been manufactured by Bajaj Electricals etc.

3.     Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

4.     Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in the fans business since 1997 and there are no complaints against him and therefore, the petitioner deserves for grant of anticipatory bail.

5.     Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State opposed the application on the ground that the premises of the petitioner has been inspected and a panchanama came to be drafted and fake name plates used by the petitioner came to be seized during the course of panchanama.  Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail. During the course of hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed before me the copy of the panchanama conducted at the premises of the petitioner.

6.     The panchas noticed 243 name plates which the petitioner has been using as if the fans manufactured by him are from the reputed companies like Bajaj Electricals etc.  Such is the accusation leveled against the petitioner, he does not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail.

7.     Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

______________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

Date:20th February, 2013.

 

cs


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criminal Petition No.1073 of 2013

 

 

 

 

Date:20th February, 2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515