<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1987 (4) TMI 498 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296142</link>
    <description>Prior statutory notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was mandatory where the claim related to an act touching the society&#039;s authorised business, and the requirement applied even though the cause of action was pleaded in tort; the suit was therefore not maintainable without notice. In trademark matters under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, suits had to be instituted in a court not inferior to a District Court, and the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction within Greater Bombay answered that description; the City Civil Court did not displace that forum. The appeal failed on both notice and jurisdiction, and the plaintiff&#039;s suit was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2021 11:14:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=648860" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (4) TMI 498 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296142</link>
      <description>Prior statutory notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was mandatory where the claim related to an act touching the society&#039;s authorised business, and the requirement applied even though the cause of action was pleaded in tort; the suit was therefore not maintainable without notice. In trademark matters under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, suits had to be instituted in a court not inferior to a District Court, and the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction within Greater Bombay answered that description; the City Civil Court did not displace that forum. The appeal failed on both notice and jurisdiction, and the plaintiff&#039;s suit was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296142</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>