Advanced Search Results

KSB Aktiengesellschaft and Another Vs. Anil Agarwal

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

the public into believing that the Defendant is in some way connected/ associated with the Plaintiffs." Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29 Entitlement to Relief Application is filed for reliefs in both infringement and passing off Plaintiffs restricts her reliefs … internationally well-known trade mark with a presence in India (KSB Aktiengesellschaft and Anr. v KSB Real Estate and Finance Private Limited; Notice of Motion No.4019 of 2007 in Suit No.2930 of 2007; decided on 11th February 2008).

Coral Cosmetics Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Excise

Acts : Finance Act, 1999 - Sections 131 and 132; Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 4, 37 and 37(2); Central Excise Rules, 1944; Central Excise (Amendment) Rules, 1997 - Rule 57F and 57F(17); Companies Act, 1956; Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Sections 3; Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1) and 141

Reported in : 2009[16]STR371

V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioners seek to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 131 and 132 of the Finance Act, 1999. By Section 131 of the Finance Act, Clause (xxviii) was inserted in Section 37(b) of the Central Excise … unless it has retrospective effect by express terms or necessary intendment, [see : AIR 1960 S.C. 12 (Para 29) - The Central Bank of India and Ors. v. Their Workman and also : AIR 1973 S.C. 1227

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Saktigarh Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Excise

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3, 4, 5, 24 and 29(2); ;Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 35G, 35G(1), 35G(3), 35H and 35(1); ;Finance Act, 1999 - Sections 35H; ;Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Section 54; ;Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Sections 35, 112, 128 and 130A; ;Income Tax Act - Sections 256 and 256(2); ;Customs Act, 1962 - Section 130(3); ;Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 35H and 27(2); ;Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 3, 5 and 5(9); ;Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 - Sections 81, 82, 86 and 117; ;Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 - Section 10; ;Arbitration Act, 1940; ;Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34; ;Andhra Pradesh (Telan-gana areas) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Section 151

Reported in : 2005(188)ELT8(Cal)

Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and points out that this Section 35H was inserted by Finance Act, 1999 replacing the earlier provisions where the period of limitation was less than the period of limitation provided in … is to be construed to have impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act, as contemplated in Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.1.2 He had also pointed out that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under

Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs.m/s. d.r. Radio Corpora ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

148/2017 Page 4 of 12 group's core business sectors consist of electronics, finance, trade and services. He states that the plaintiffs are engaged in the … trade mark SAMSUNG fulfils all the requirements as stipulated under Section 11(6)(i) to (v) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. He further states that this Court has the power to CS (COMM) 148/2017 Page 5 of 12 declare … the plaintiffs’ mark SAMSUNG in respect of identical goods amounts to infringement of the plaintiffs’ proprietary rights under Section 29(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.14. Recently, this court in the case of Exxon Mobil Corporation and Others

Mankind Pharma Ltd vs.chandra Mani Tiwari & Anr

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

29(5); reliance in this regard is placed on para no.44 of Bloomberg Finance LP Vs. Prafull Saklecha 2014 (1) RAJ44(Del), para 15 of London Rubber … mark „ATORVAKIND‟, had CS(COMM) No.100/2017 Page 3 of 21 raised objection under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, on account of its alleged similarity with the marks „ATORKIND‟ and „ATORKIND-F‟ cited in the Examination Report; (f) … by the defendants is mala fide and dishonest; (iv) the action of the defendants amounts to infringement under Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999; (v) a „mark‟ under Section 2(m) of the Act includes a „name‟;

Choice Hotels International Inc Vs. M Sanjay Kumar and Anr

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

of determination of the well-known trade mark in the case of Bloomberg Finance LP vs. Prafull Saklecha & Ors., 2013 (56) PTC243(Del) wherein was observed … Plaintiff has not filed copy of the entry in register as required under Section 137 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to prove its registration.13. Further, the defendants are carrying on their business … being in the same trade. INFRINGEMENT20 Before I proceed to decide this issue, it is imperative to discuss Section 29 of the Act that envisages the law relating to infringement of a registered trademark and Section 28 of

Nokia Corporation vs.manas Chandra & Anr

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

of this Court in Rolex SA Vs. Alex Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2009 (41) PTC284(Del.) and Bloomberg Finance LP Vs. Prafull Saklecha & Ors., 2013 (56) PTC243(Del.) while analysing Section 29(4) of the Act, 1999 have … as a well known trade mark and as per the provisions of Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the trade mark NOKIA is entitled to protection across all goods.11. Recently, this court in the case of

Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Max Switchgears Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

law relating to infringement of a registered trademark has been envisaged under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and exclusive rights granted by virtue of registration under Section 28 which reads as under:“29. Infringement of registered … requirements exist then an injunction restraining order the infringer should be passed.30. Recently in the case of Bloomberg Finance LP vs. Prafull Saklecha & Ors. 2013 (56) PTC243(Del), in para 51, after a long discussion on Section

Merit Enterprises Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2007)288ITR226(Hyd.)

clear, and they mandated the levy of surcharge. In this context, he referred to the provisions of annual Finance Act, 1999, Schedule-I, which clearly mandated that the income-tax levied in terms of Section 113 shall be increased by a … the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended.In Keshavlal Jethalal Shah v. Mohanlal Bhagwandas this Court while interpreting Section 29(2) of the amending Act, held thus: AIR p. 1339, para 8 An explanatory Act is generally passed to

Shatrushailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 - Sections 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 95 and 98; Income-tax Act, 1961 - Sections 140A and 264; Wealth-tax Act, 1957

Reported in : [2003]259ITR149(Guj)

India promulgated the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme' or 'the KVSS') through the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, as contained in Sections 86 to 98 of the said Act. The scheme came … for a writ, direction or order of this court quashing and setting aside the orders dated February 9, 1999, passed by the respondent-Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot, rejecting the petitioner's declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme for … before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), but as the self-assessment tax under Section 140A was not paid, the appeals were not entertained by the said … under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee invoked Section 297 of the 1961 Act which provided that notwithstanding the repeal of the