Allahabad Court May 2009 Judgments
Mohit Kumar Varshney and anr. Vs. Girraj Food Products Hathras
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2866; 2009(41)PTC159(All)
Pankaj Mithal, J. 1. The plaintiff-respondent M/s Girraj Food Products, Hathras through its proprietor instituted Original Suit No. 1 of 2009 against the defendant-appellants under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from packing and selling 'Namkeen' with the name of 'Raja Chaudhary' which was said to be similar and deceptive to the registered trade mark 'Chacha Chaudhary' of the plaintiff-respondent; for accounting with regard to sale so for made with the deceptive name; and for seizer of all such deceptive material. 2. The suit was instituted on 12.12.2007 and an application for interim injunction was also moved therein. The application was opposed by the defendant-appellants by filing objection on 19.3.2009 and further written statement and it was inter alia contended that as the registered trade mark of the plaintiff-respondent itself is in question, the proceedings of the suit are liable to be stayed an...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mamta Dubey Vs. Rajesh Dubey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-2009
Reported in: AIR2009All141
B.K. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri C.B. Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The instant first appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2002 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow decreeing the Original Suit No. 613 of 1998. 3. Plaintiff-respondent, Rajesh Dubey, who is the husband of the defendant-appellant, Smt. Mamta Debey, filed Original Suit No. 613 of 1998 before the Family Court, Lucknow under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' filed by the plaintiff-respondent for dissolution of the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant by a decree of divorce on the allegations interalia, that the plaintiff and the defendant were married in accordance with the Hindu Vedic rites on 23.02.1993 at the residence of father of the respondent at Gorakhpur; that in the very first week after marriage, the d...
Tag this Judgment!City Montessori School (Regd.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-2009
Reported in: (2009)225CTR(All)188; [2009]315ITR48(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. Heard Sri Shanti Bhushan, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Ravi Prakash Gupta and Sri P.K. Sinha for the petitioner and Sri D. D. Chopra, learned senior standing counsel for the opposite parties.2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated April 11, 2008, passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Luc-know, by which he has rejected the application dated February 4, 1999, moved by the petitioner for grant of approval of the prescribed authority under Sub-clause (vi) of Clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02.3. The brief facts of the case on the basis of material on record and as alleged in the writ petition are that the petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in the name and style 'City Montessori School' (hereinafter referred to as C.M.S.) and registration to the petitioner was ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunder Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2851
ORDERVineet Saran, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned Counsel holding brief of Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and have perused the record. With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.2. The case of the petitioner is that the had applied for admission in the B.Ed. course and after counselling conducted by the respondent-University, he was allotted the respondent No. 4-College. The petitioner thereafter deposited the entire fees and continued his studies of B.Ed. course. At the time when the petitioner was to appear in the examination of B.Ed., the respondent-University refused to issue the admit card to the petitioner and to permit the petitioner appear in the examination on the ground that the petitioner had less than 45% marks in the B.A. examination. It has been contended...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Mangal Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC3013
Rajes Kumar, J.1. By means of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda dated 21.3.2001 by which the Revision No. 17 filed by the Gaon Sabha has been allowed.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that Gata No. 6362 was reserved for Rahoni (cattle purposes). In the consolidation proceeding, objection filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Consolidation Officer, Banda. It appears that the petitioner was claiming allotment of Gata No. 6362 in his favour which has been rejected. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, petitioner filed appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Banda. In appeal, the petitioner contended that in Gata No. 6362, the petitioner was in possession before the Zamindari Abolition Act and the same was the property of his ancestors. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has accepted the plea of the petitioner that said Gata No. 6362 was in possession of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC3041
ORDERRajes Kumar, J.1. Heard, Ms. Afshan Shafaut, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. By means of present petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 3.12.2005, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti in Revision No. 1514/2005, by which the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. It appears that in consolidation proceeding, the petitioner could not file the objection under Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The consolidation proceeding was concluded prior to 1993 and a notification in respect of the village in dispute has already been issued under Section 52 of the Act on 17.4.1993. However, the petitioner filed the objection under Section 9A (2) of the Act on 12.7.2002 before the Consolidation Officer. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23.8.2004 rejected the objection. Against the said order, petitioner filed appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation, which...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Director, U.P. State Handlook Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Asha Lata ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3226
Pankaj Mithal, J.1. I have heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant and Sri P.K. Mlsra alongwlth Sri K.K. Tiwari learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the arbitrator by name and is only a formal party. Learned Counsel for the parties agree for final disposal of the appeal at the admission stage on the basis of the affidavits already exchanged between them. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal finally.2. The facts in nutshell giving rise to this appeal are as under:The respondent in this appeal Smt. Asha Talwar is the owner of the shop in dispute No. 498B, Sadar Bazar, Jhansi and the appellant here in this appeal U.P. State Handloom Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') through its Managing Director is a tenant in the said shop. The tenancy started in the year 1977 and was continued lastly under the agreement of October, 1999, wherein the appellant was permitted to continue as tenant/lessee' in...
Tag this Judgment!Hodel Singh Vs. Vaishya Society (Registered) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3569
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri R.C. Pal for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Gupta for the contesting respondent.2. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 27.2.2009 and 22.1.2009 by which the suit for eviction filed by the respondent-landlord has been decreed against the petitioner by both the courts below.3. The respondent-landlord instituted an eviction suit No. 57 of 2001 before the Judge, Small Causes Court for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the disputed premises, inter-alia on the ground that the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed premises but had defaulted in payment of rent from 1.2.1991 to 31.8.2001 and had created sub-tenancy. It was further stated that it is a new construction and also since it belongs to a society, U.P. Act No XIII of 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) was not applicable. It was further pleaded that despite a notice terminating the tenancy, neither the premises were vacated ...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Singh (D) Through L.Rs. and anr. Vs. Dambar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC296
Ran Vijai Singh, J.1. Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 15803 of 2008 is taken up for orders.2. This is an application for condoning delay in filing the substitution application.3. Heard Sri Sandeep Agarwal holding brief of Sri Rahul Sahai, learned Counsel for the applicants and Sri Ajit Kumar learned Counsel for respondent.4. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application that sole respondent Dambar Singh died on 16.1.2008 leaving behind his wife and three sons namely Smt. Phoolwari and Rajveer Singh, Kamal Singh and Lochan Singh. The reasons for not filing substitution application well within time appears to be an ignorance of the applicant.5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of heirs of Late Dambar Singh stating therein that the contents of affidavit are false for the simple reason as the date of death of Dambar Singh has wrongly been mentioned in the affidavit as while filing written statement in the year 2006 in Original Sui...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Annapurna Devi Vs. Administrator General and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3223
C.K. Prasad, C.J. and Dilip Gupta, J.1. This Special Appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 by defendant No. 1/2 of Testamentary Suit No. 4 of 1985 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30th January, 2009 by which his plea to cross-examine defendant No. 4 was rejected by a learned Judge of this Court. 2. The dispute in the said Testamentary Suit is about the estate of the deceased Rani Rewati Devi widow of Ravi Pratap Narain Singh. It is said that an unregistered Will dated 14th April, 1984 was executed by Rani Rewati Devi under which a trust was created in which the trustees are defendant Nos. 14 to 23 in the said Suit. The testator died issueless on 27th May, 1984. Jai Bharat Mani Aacharaya Dixit, executor of the said Will, filed Testamentary Case No. 10 of 1984 for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of the deceased Rani Rewati Devi. Notices were issued and since objections were filed, this Testamentary Case was...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »