Advanced Search Results

Federal Express Corporation vs.fedex Securities Ltd. & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

place.‖ 12. The plaintiffs in the present case also seek to rely on Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 which reads as under:-"―134. Suit for infringement, etc., to be instituted before District Court.- (1) No suit- CS … Ltd. (first defendant), Fedex Stock Broking CS (OS) 2213/2014 Page 1 of 29 Ltd. (second defendant) and Fedex Finance Pvt. Ltd. (third defendant), each of the said companies being incorporated under the Companies Act their respective registered

M/s. RSPL Limited Vs. Mukesh Sharma and Another

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

appellant/plaintiff. 2. The suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as also the Copyright Act, 1957 seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of its trade mark and copyright. The … Hon ble Court, as such, has the jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit by virtue of Section 134 (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1999. 4. From paragraph 37 of the plaint, which has been set … on with, its' important aspects of its business including marketing, distribution and finance and is carrying on its said goods and business under the said

Citigroup Inc. and Anr. Vs. Citicorp Business and Finance Pvt. Ltd. an ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

CITIGROUP INC. AND ANR. …Plaintiffs Through Mr. CM Lall, Adv. with Anuj Nair, Adv. versus CITICORP BUSINESS & FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND ANR .…Defendants Through Mr. Zahid Ali, Adv. with Mr.A.K.De, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH … come within the definition of well-known marks as defined by Section 2 (1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). They are, therefore, liable to the protection afforded to well-known marks under … the aforementioned paragraph No.20. By virtue thereof and by virtue of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 this Hon’ble Court has the territorial

Citigroup Inc. and Anr. Vs. Citicorp Business and Finance Pvt. Ltd. an ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

CITIGROUP INC. AND ANR. …Plaintiffs Through Mr. CM Lall, Adv. with Anuj Nair, Adv. versus CITICORP BUSINESS & FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND ANR .…Defendants Through Mr. Zahid Ali, Adv. with Mr.A.K.De, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH … come within the definition of well-known marks as defined by Section 2 (1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). They are, therefore, liable to the protection afforded to well-known marks under … the aforementioned paragraph No.20. By virtue thereof and by virtue of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 this Hon’ble Court has the territorial

Citigroup Inc. and anr. Vs. Citicorp Business and Finance Pvt. Ltd. an ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

CITIGROUP INC. AND ANR. …Plaintiffs Through Mr. CM Lall, Adv. with Anuj Nair, Adv. versus CITICORP BUSINESS & FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND ANR .…Defendants Through Mr. Zahid Ali, Adv. with Mr.A.K.De, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH … come within the definition of well-known marks as defined by Section 2 (1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). They are, therefore, liable to the protection afforded to well-known marks under … the aforementioned paragraph No.20. By virtue thereof and by virtue of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 this Hon’ble Court has the territorial

Eros International Media Limited Vs. Telemax Links India Pvt. Ltd. and ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Arbitration

proposition. 16.Section 62 of the Copyright Act 1957 corresponds almost exactly to Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999: infringement and passing off actions cannot be brought in a court lower than a jurisdictionally competent District Court, … those mentioned in the decision of the Supreme Court in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc vs SBI Home Finance Limited and Ors. (AIR 2011 SC 2507).He refers to paragraph 20 to 24 of this decision (from the

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pandian Hotels Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2005)(180)ELT458Tri(Chennai)

For the delay of payments, the original authority imposed penalties on the assessee under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, which were quantitatively equal to the respective amounts of tax. Against these penalties, the assessee preferred appeals … of quanta of penalties on the respondents, the respondents defaulted payment of service tax during the period November, 1999 to April, 2001. The payments were made belatedly. For the delay of payments, the original authority imposed penalties

Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Trust & Ors vs.rajani Kothari & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

in a district.16. I have invited the attention of the counsels to Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 which provide for the suits thereunder to be instituted in … State Government”.15. I have invited attention of the counsels to my judgment in Rahisuddin Vs. Gambit Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (176) DLT696 though in the context of Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,

Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Subject : Sales Tax/VAT

Acts : Bihar Finance Act, 1981 - Sections 2, 13, 17(2), 17(3), 19, 19(1), 19(2), 21, 21(1), 47 and 58; Central Sales Tax Act; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 5; Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 - Rules 13, 13A, 15(3) and 18; Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules - Rule 29(2); Sales Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2000 - Rule 13A; Sales Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2006 - Rule 13A

Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR2126; [2008(3)JCR698(Jhr)]; (2009)24VST233(Jharkh)

the petitioner challenging the order of re-assessment dated 5/5/2006 passed under Sections 17(3) and 19 of the Bihar Finance Act. The writ petition was dismissed by this Bench on 27/11/2006 holding that the petitioner may avail the statutory … by the petitioner challenging the order of re-assessment dated 5/5/2006 passed under Sections 17(3) and 19 of the Bihar Finance Act. The writ petition was … the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2004) 134 STC 354.4. The petitioner is a registered company having its activities almost … be at liberty to pass the order accordingly.3. Besides challenging the re-assessment order dated 5/5/2006 for the period, 1999-2000, the petitioner also challenged the vires of Rule 13A of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 as amended

Commissioner of Customs versus M/S Canon India Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

Reported in : [2024]12S.C.R.202

in the case of Mangali Impex’s case expounds the correct interpretation of s.28(11) and whether s.97 of the Finance Act, 2022, which retrospectively validates the show cause notices with effect from 01.04.2023, is manifestly arbitrary and thus, violative … in Mangali Impex’s case failed to take into account the policy being followed by the Customs department since 1999 which provides for the exclusion of jurisdiction of all other proper officers once a show cause notice by … of 2022; S.K. Srivastava v. Union of India, 1971 SCC OnLine Del 134; Consolidated Coffee Ltd. and Anr. v. Coffee Board, Bangalore [1980] 3 SCR … Such entrustment could be either conditional or unconditional - Object of this Section is to confer powers of search, seizure, arrest and recording of statements,