.....single judge of the delhi high court in the matter of malhotra book depot v/s. union of india and ors reported in 2012 (49) ptc 354 (del.). the facts there were similar to the present petition. the delhi high court while allowing the petition and issuing a mandamus to the respondent to grant restoration and renewal of the trade mark analyzed the scheme of the 1958 act and the rules made thereunder, observed as under:- 14. â¦............................................................................. analysis of section 25 of the aforesaid act shows that a trade mark registered under the said act may be renewed from time to time for periods of seven years each on making of an application and payment of the requisite fee. the application for renewal of the trade mark may be made, not earlier than six months before the expiration of the last registration of the trade mark. if such an application is made, the registration of the trade mark would be renewed, provided the conditions laid down under the act and the rules are satisfied. however, if no application is made for renewal of the registration of the trade mark and only two months are left before its expiration, then.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....proposal form. it is contended that the husband of the respondent was an alcoholic and used to consume tobacco and non-disclosure of the material fact goes to root of the matter vitiating the insurance policy. 8. the appellant has contended that the district forum failed to appreciate the document dated 28.3.2007 issued by apollo emergency hospital, hyderabad and that the fact of hospitalization of the insured had gone unchallenged. it is contended that the insured made false declaration regarding his past medical history and the district forum failed to appreciate the reply given by the appellant to the notice of the respondent. 9. the point for consideration is whether the order of the district forum suffers from misappreciation of facts or law? 10. the respondents husband mohd qayyam submitted proposal form on 09.06.2008 to the appellant insurance company. in the order of the district forum the date of proposal form is mentioned as 6.6.2008. to the questions no.20(e) the husband of the respondent had given the answer as âno. the relevant questions regarding his health and the answers given by him are shown below in tabular form. q.no.questionanswer20(e)do you.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....submits that thereafter, the report of that committee was to be received and looked into. 6. we have perused the provisions of section 4 of the 1966 code. section 4 deals with the constitution of revenue areas. sub-section (4) thereof stipulates that every notification or order made under section 4 is subject to condition of previous publication and for that purpose section 24 of 1904 act has been made applicable. the power has been given to state government. clause (d) of section 24 of 1904 act requires the authority having power to create such revenue division, to consider any objection or suggestion, which may be received by it from any person, after the publication of such notification or proposal. it is, therefore, apparent that this statutory procedure cannot be done away and even if any one man committee is appointed or it's report is accepted that acceptance cannot defeat the requirements of section 4(4) of 1966 code. 7. it is an admitted position that till date, no such steps are taken and there is no separate revenue division. 8. the impugned decision taken in the cabinet meeting dated 5.1.2009 does not by itself violate section 4(4) of 1966 code. however, it's.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the district consumer forum, ranga reddy district. 2. since these appeals are preferred by the very same opposite party, and as common questions of fact and law are involved, we are of the opinion that all these appeals can be disposed of by a common order. fa 104/2013 is taken as a lead case. for convenience sake, parties as arrayed in the complaints are referred to here-under : 3. fa 104/2013 : the complainant joined in the venture, viz., âsai puramâ floated by the opposite party in survey nos. 14,22, 23, 24(p), 29(p) of kawadipalli village and in sy. no. 254(p), 255(p), 256(p), 259 (p), 260 (p) to 262 (p), 325, 331, 339(p), 367 (p), 368(p), 373(p), 377 to 382 (p), 405 of taramathipet village and in sy no. 11(p), 12(p), 13(p), 58 (p) of balajiguda of hayathnagar mandal, ranga reddy district for allotment of a house plot of 200 sq. yards under the scheme either to pay 50% on the date of enrolment and 50% within a period of 3 months and there from each square yard will be at rs.650/- or in 15 monthly installments @ 750/- for rs.1,50,000/- and that she paid rs.1,30,000/- towards sale consideration in four instalments in between 24.12.005 to 25.03.2006 and that the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....produced by the applicants fully support the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter, therefore, we do not consider it proper to refer to the facts of each case in detail. 11. by the letter dated 12th june, 2009, the havildars who had been conferred honorary rank of naib subedar were granted regular pension with effect from 1.1.2006 by providing them notional promotion of higher grade of naib subedar. the government letter reads: âi am directed to say that in pursuance of governments decision on the recommendations of the sixth central pay commission contained in para 5.1.62 of chapter v of the report, the president is pleased to decide that honorary rank of naib subedar granted to havaldars will be notionally considered as a promotion to the higher grade of naib subedar and benefit of fitment in the pay band and the higher grade pay will be allowed notionally for the purpose of fixation of pension only. accordingly, additional element of pension of rs.100/- p.m payable to havaldars granted hony rank of naib subedar as per regn.137 of pension regulations for the army part i (1961) amended vide this ministry's letter no.1(1)/88/d (pen/sers) dated 6.11.1991 will cease.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and with a view to avoid the dues of pgvsc, he has transferred his property in the name of his son and his wife. he therefore submitted that the fact that the house which has been purchased or transferred in the name of wife is in fact owned by jayantilal radadia and, therefore, supply has been rightly disconnected. he has submitted that as per the regulation, particularly, regulations 4.1.11 and 6.4.7, the petitioners are not entitled for reconnection of the electricity supply till the amount due is paid. he has also referred to the past litigation in the form of civil suit and first appeal nos.4218 and 4218 of 2007 and the execution proceedings. he therefore submitted that the present petition may be dismissed. 6. in rejoinder, learned counsel, shri kanabar has also referred to the affidavit in rejoinder to support his submission. it was submitted that even if the outstanding dues are there, same could be recovered in accordance with law in execution proceeding but the supply of electricity cannot be disconnected. 7. learned counsel, shri dipak dave referred to the additional affidavit and submitted that plot on which the residential as well as commercial connections have.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....rights of the consumer. so if for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that the petitioner has defaulted in payments even then keeping in view the fact that the house is a prime necessity in the life and when a poor person has paid almost all in respect of a house in such a situation the ops cannot eject the petitioner without giving personal hearing and at the most the ops can charge the due amount with interest from the petitioner. so we hold that the ejectment order dated 14.06.2006 is illegal and void and the ops are liable to hand over the possession of the house no. 513 gf, sector “ 6, housing board colony, panipat on receipt of due amount together with interest from the petitioner. for the reasons recorded above, we hold that the ejectment order passed by the ops in respect of the house no. 513 gf, lig, sector 6, housing board colony panipat is illegal and void and not binding upon the petitioner further, we direct the petitioner to make the entire due amount with interest at the agreed rate of interest in between the parties within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter the ops shall hand over the possession of the said.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....shinde versus assistant provident funds commissioner] and of the kerala high court in writ petition (c) no.5857 of 2011 dated 10.08.2011 [s.a.cashew factory versus the employees provident fund and ors.]. 8. on the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent authorities has vehemently contended that the petitioner company is delaying the proceedings and is not co-operating and no indulgence be shown by this court. it is also contended that there is no provision in the statute to grant permission to cross examine the competent authority and therefore petition be not entertained even to that extent. 9. having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record and without going into the merits, this court finds that ends of justice would meet and the petition can be disposed of by examining only one contention as to whether the petitioner has right to cross examine the assistant provident fund commissioner, whose report is treated to be deposition by the regional provident fund commissioner and based on which the order under section-7a of the act is proposed to be passed against the petitioner. 10.1 the bombay high court in the case.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to attend such kind of letters which may have been received by them and they are even not supposed to acknowledge or reply such letters. the fact that none of the above referred authorities replied to the letters of dr. arun kumar upadhyaya/society so as to raise any objection against the work proposed to be undertaken by him does not in any way tantamount to according him/society permission to carry out the proposed activities. the other explanation that the national commission for women had evolved a concept of parivarik mahila lok adalat for redressal and speedy disposal of cases relating to marriage and family affairs and that the name of dr. upadhyaya/society at one time was recommended for organizing parivarik mahila lok adalat in district also does not authorize him/society to organize/recognize any marriage between two hindus and to issue marriage certificate. parivarik mahila lok adalat is a non statutory forum aimed to bring about the settlement of matrimonial disputes disputes rather than a forum to recognize marriages and to issue certificates thereof. dr. arun kumar upadhyaya in his reply has also placed reliance upon one of the orders of this court dated.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....passed by the gujarat state consumer disputes redressal commission, ahmedabad (the state commission) in first appeal no. 741 of 2006. the brief facts of the case as per the complaint of the respondent no. 1 and 2/ complainant no. 1 and 2 are as follows: respondent no. 1 is a girls hostel namely lourdes society and the said society registered under society registration act, vide society registration no. guj/ 525/ surat and also registered under trust act vide its trust registration no. f/ 430/ surat. the respondent had purchased the dirty shade in 30 x 30 ivory floor glazed tiles from petitioner no. 5 who is a local agent of petitioner no. 1 -company through its sales department of petitioner no. 4. the said goods of tiles were delivered by petitioner no. 3 to the respondent. the particulars of goods of tiles which purchased by respondent are as under: s no.dateinvoice no.bill/ d o no.amount in rs.1.02.02.200000693268111,12,480/-2.18.02.200000728371641,04,000/-3.02.03.200007643752293,933/-4.24.03.200081078081,17,166/-5.06.03.20018810818742,000/-???total4,69,579/-at the time of purchasing the above mentioned goods of tiles, the petitioner company had also given a guarantee of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT