.....lineman. he has checked the meter and reported that the condition of the meter is good. the above entries are seen in ext.b2. the counsel has also relied on the annexure of ext.b1 extract of the meter reading register from which it can be seen that in the 4 subsequent billings the units of consumption has drastically reduced. evidently only with respect to the particular disputed bill there is a spurt. it is pointed out by the counsel that the above spurt can be on account of defective earthing or on account of excessive use during the above period. evidently the contention of the counsel is a possible reason for the spurt. but it has to be noted that the meter has not been properly examined. only the lineman has put the main switch off and found that the meter is working. the appellant ought to have enquired into the matter. of course pw1 also could not explain the reason for the reduced consumption subsequently. 6. in the circumstances we find that the order of the forum directing to pay compensation of rs.5000/- is liable to be set aside. the opposite party/appellant is directed to collect only rs.250/- is the bill amount with respect to the bill dated:20..9..2003. the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....replace the set of dining table and four chairs and pay compensation , an amount of rs.3,000/- together with costs of rs.2,000/-. briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant has been residing in guahathi on employment with indian army while his wife has been residing in secunderabad. the appellant has purchased on 2nd january,2008 a set of dining table and four chairs which were made of teak and were delivered to him on the same day on payment of an amount of rs.24,000/-. in the delivery challan it was not mentioned that the table and chairs were made of teak wood and on being questioned the same the employee of the respondent who delivered the furniture replied that it would be mentioned in the bill that would be issued the next day which was not given. the appellant noticed cracks in the table and chairs within three days of the purchase which was repeatedly reported to the respondent who after much persuasion had sent on 12th january, 2008 to repair the table and chairs by inserting nuts and bolts. the respondent has not issued the bill nor had taken cognizance of the cracks developed in the table and chairs. the appellant complained of the same to the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the loan. the loan amount plus interest due would work out more than 2 lakhs and the amount due towards the prized chitty after deducting the instalments to be paid is mentioned rs.71978/-. evidently the complainant was not in a position to remit the loan amount as well as the chitty instalments at the same time. even the amount of compensation ordered to be paid would not enable the complainant to get out of the debt trap. we find that the opposite party/appellant should not have insisted for additional security and refused to adjust the prized chitty amount to the loan account as requested by the complainant. the interest at 21% was due on the loan amount where as the prized chitty amount was not disbursed nor was it credited with any interest. in the circumstances we find that there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/appellant. no interference is called for in the order of the forum to pay compensation and cost. in the result the appeal is dismissed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of trade marks who is considered to be an expert on the subject of trade marks and it must be considered to be an order within the meaning of the act. 3. section 91(1) of the act provides that any person aggrieved by an order or decision of the registrar under this act, or rules made there under may prefer an appeal within 3 months from the date on which the order or decision is communicated to such person preferring the appeal. it is clear from the plain reading of the provision that for preferring an appeal the person must to aggrieved by the order on decision. so it is a must that there must be an order or decision to prefer an appeal. 4. the order or decision against which an appeal is filed should be of such a nature which affects the rights or liabilities of the parties. it is worthwhile to quote the observation of this appellate board reported in 2006(33) ptc 216 ipab â prabha singh jaswanth singh vs. b mohammed yousuff â âwhen once the complaint is filed before the judicial magistrate, it is open to the appellant to take appropriate defence. under the trade marks act, a false representation with regard to the unregistered trade marks as that of a.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....a well known trade mark. being a well known trade mark and being a prior adopter and user of the impugned trade mark, the impugned registration in favour of the respondent ought to be cancelled and till the final orders it is prayed that the effect of registration be stayed. the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner. 3. the respondent did not file their counter to the miscellaneous petition but agreed to make their oral submissions. 4. we heard both the counsels. the learned counsel submitted that there was an order of stay in another connected application â ora/98/09/tm/del (m.p. no. 77/09) â for cancellation of the device mark âevereadyâ under no. 539621 by this appellate board on 07.10.2009. the counsel further went into the merits of the case and submitted that purity of the register is to be maintained. the trade mark adopted by the respondent is identical to that of the petitioner. the counsel also relied on various judgements in support of his case. 5. learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order granted in the other matter cannot be considered here as that was an exparte order. the counsel also argued on the merits of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in filing the same as the original rectification application and the miscellaneous petition were treated as abandoned as per the provisions of sub rule (2) of rule 17 of the intellectual property appellate board (procedure) rules, 2003. 3. the counsel for the petitioner appeared on 21.12.2009 and submitted that there was a delay of 92 days in filing the restoration petition. the reason for the delay was that the petitioner was unwell and could not instruct the counsel for filing the restoration petition. the matter was subsequently adjourned to 23.12.2009 for the counsel to work out on the issue of maintainability as nothing was submitted on that day. the counsel appeared on 23.12.2009 and intended to file a medical certificate in proof of the petitioners illness, but nothing was submitted as to the maintainability of the restoration petition. 4. the word âabandoned has been defined in whartons law lexicon as â â a thing banned or denounced as forfeited or lost, whence to abandon, desert or forsake as lost and gone. the word âabandonâ means in its ordinary and general meaning does not signify merely âleavingâ but leaving completely and finally.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....amalgamated vide orders of the high court of delhi under company petition nos.97/2008, 98/2008, 100/2008 and 101/2008. the respondent further had maintained the clauses in the scheme of arrangement. 8. we have heard the counsels and they reiterated what was stated in the petition and reply respectively. we understand that persuant to the orders of the honble high court of delhi under the scheme of arrangement in the company petition the change has been allowed. the change in the name has been incorporated in the records of the registrar of companies. the said fact has not been disputed by the respondent. in such circumstances, we think it appropriate to allow the petition to amend the cause title as prayed for. the miscellaneous petition no.293/2009 is therefore allowed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....imputable to a party. in a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute âsufficient causeâ or not will be dependent upon facts of each case. there cannot be straightjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. but one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal drive. acceptance of explanation, furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide can be imputed to the defaulting party. on the other hand, while considering the matter the courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine like manner. however, by taking a pedantic and hypertechnical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....imputable to a party. in a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute âsufficient causeâ or not will be dependent upon facts of each case. there cannot be straightjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. but one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal drive. acceptance of explanation, furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide can be imputed to the defaulting party. on the other hand, while considering the matter the courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine like manner. however, by taking a pedantic and hypertechnical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....imputable to a party. in a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute âsufficient causeâ or not will be dependent upon facts of each case. there cannot be straightjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. but one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal drive. acceptance of explanation, furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide can be imputed to the defaulting party. on the other hand, while considering the matter the courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine like manner. however, by taking a pedantic and hypertechnical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT