Short Summary
This entry does not constitute a judgment but rather a cause list entry from the Bombay High Court dated 21 August 2026. Two matters filed by Activision Publishing Inc against OAO Info India Pvt Ltd were listed as fresh matters (COMMP(L)/27173/2026 and COMMP(L)/27270/2026) before Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan. As per the board's header note, the petitioner was directed to issue private notice, and the matters were to be listed as post-notice matters three weeks later on 18 September 2026.
Detailed Summary
The provided text is not a judgment but a **Daily Main Cause List** of the Bombay High Court for Friday, 21 August 2026, prepared for Court No. 26 Annex, presided over by Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan. The cause list contains numerous matters scheduled for the day, including commercial disputes, arbitration matters, company petitions, and intellectual property cases.
The matter involving **Activision Publishing Inc** (petitioner) and **OAO Info India Pvt Ltd** (respondent) appears at serial numbers 72 and 73 under the heading **"FRESH MATTERS AUTO LISTED"**. The two case numbers are:
- **COMMP(L)/27173/2026** – Activision Publishing Inc vs. OAO Info India Pvt Ltd
- **COMMP(L)/27270/2026** – Activision Publishing Inc vs. OAO Info India Pvt Ltd
Both matters are represented by Advocate Bijal Kishor Rathod for the petitioner.
No substantive arguments, pleadings, or legal reasoning are contained in the provided text. The cause list entry merely indicates that these were newly filed commercial matters (likely intellectual property related, given the COMMP(L) designation and the parties involved) that were automatically listed for the first time before the court.
There is no judgment, reasoning, or ruling in this text. The header note of the cause list states:
> "In today's Board, Items 72 to 73 is auto listed Fresh Matters. In these matters, the Applicant / Petitioner shall issue private notice and these matters shall be listed as Post-Notice Matters three weeks from today i.e. on 18/09/2026."
Accordingly, the petitioner (Activision Publishing Inc) was directed to issue private notice to the respondent (OAO Info India Pvt Ltd), and the matters were adjourned to be re-listed as post-notice matters on 18 September 2026. No merits-based adjudication took place on 21 August 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in other matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Activision Publishing Inc vs Oao Info India Pvt Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Saranya Zaveri And Anr.vsKamadon Academy P. Ltd.
The writ petition challenged the lower court's refusal to accept objections regarding territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff, Kamadon Academy P. Ltd., sought a declaration of exclusive ownership over the 'Melchizedek method of meditation technique.' The High Court found that since the company was incorporated and conducted business outside Ernakulam, the court lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Liberty Oil Mills LimitedvsN. M. Oil Enterprises
The petitioner, Liberty Oil Mills Limited, filed an interim application regarding a Commercial IP Suit. The court noted that the initial service of notice was insufficient as it did not specify a particular date for the ad-interim hearing. Consequently, the Court issued an order setting a specific date and requiring the plaintiff to provide detailed notice.
Dexpo Intelectual Properties Services Ltd.vsNilesh Patel
The dispute between Dexpo Intelectual Properties Services Ltd. and Nilesh Patel was amicably settled through Consent Terms dated 26th November, 2020. Both parties agreed to the terms, leading the court to allow the Leave Petition (L) No.9822 of 2020.
M/s. Tata Consultancy Services LtdvsThe Asst. Commissioner (CT), VMU-1
M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (TCS) challenged assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) demanding VAT of Rs.52,39,44,119/- on a service turnover of Rs.11,50,52,48,700/- for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13, on transactions involving custom-made/customized software development and issuance of Digital Signature Certificates. TCS contended that these were pure service transactions on which Service Tax had already been paid under the Finance Act, 1994, and that no VAT was leviable. The Telangana High Court allowed the writ petitions, holding that the transactions did not constitute a 'sale' of goods and therefore could not attract VAT under the TGVAT Act, 2005, and set aside the impugned assessment orders.
Zarina Dada And OthersvsThe State of Maharashtra And Others
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the legality of a land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986 and a corrigendum dated 5 April 2017 issued after 31 years, which sought to include the petitioners' land at Kurla, Mumbai within the purview of the original award for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road. The petitioners, heirs of the original landowner Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, contended that the corrigendum was without legal authority and that the mandatory procedural requirements under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were not complied with. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition, declaring the award, corrigendum, and consequential notice under Section 12(2) as illegal and void, and directed the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of compensation at current market value within three months.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.