Delhi Court November 1978 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Hansa Chemical Pharmacy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1978
Reported in: 1986(2)ARBLR303(Delhi); ILR1979Delhi236
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) The plaintiff (The Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd.) has filed the present suit for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents, representatives, dealers and workmen from infringing its registered copyright to 'OK Washing Soap Wrapper' belonging to it. The plaintiff also seeks a permanent injunction restraining the above-said persons from manufacturing selling, offering for sale to dealers washing soap under 521 wrapper which is a colourful imitation of its wrapper and from giving an impression that the defendant's washing soap was that of the plaintiff or was connected with the plaintiff in any manner what soever amounting to passing off. An order for destruction of the impugned wrappers, labels, blocks, dyes and other trade literature concerning the adoption and use of the impugned wrapper mark is also sought. The plaintiff also prays for rendition of the defendant's accounts of sales of washing soap under the wrapper objected to b...
Mis Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Company ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1978
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi435
V.S. Deshpande, C.J. (1) It is the distinction between the two kinds of functions or powers exercised by the Central Government under the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) that is material for the distinction we have to decide whether the authorisation given by the while others are quasi-judicial in their nature. In the light of this distinction we have to decide whether the authorisation given by the impugned order dated 13th April, 1977, by the Company Law Board (respondent No. 1) acting for the Central Government (respondent No. 2) under section 399(4) of the Act to Shri A. M. P. Arunachalam. (respondent No. 3), a member of the appellant petitioner-company, to make an application to the court (Madras High Court) against the company under sections 397-398 of the Act was an executive act or a quasi-judicial act.(2) Respondent No. 3 is a member of the appellant petitioner-company holding less than I/I 0th of the issued share capital of the company. He applied to the Company Law Board for a...
Anil Kumar Sachdeva Vs. Four a Asbestos (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1978
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas122(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) M/S. Four 'A' Asbestos Private Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'company'' was ordered to be wound up by the order of Kapur, J., dated November 22, 1976 in CP. 33/76. This order was passed ex parte because there was no appearance on behalf of the company. (2) These two application (3) The applications are opposed on several grounds but at the present moment I am concerned only with the preliminary objection which has been raised on behalf of the petitioning creditor and Official Liquidator that the application for setting aside the ex parte winding up order is not maintainable. (4) The objection raised is that the winding up order has been passed, though ex parte, after considering the averments contained in the petition. Moreover, the petition had been earlier admitted and notice of admission had also been published in two newspapers as well as in the official gazette. The company having been ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator having taken ch...
Ajit Singh Vs. Indersaran, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1978
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi335
H.L. Anand, J.(1) When can an owner be said to bona fide require a premises for his residence Are the need of the owner an,d its extent justifiable If so. what is the criterion to determine the reasonable need of an owner These are some of the important questions that fall for coiisideration in these Second Appeals, four by different tenants and three by the owners of the property in dispute which assail a common order of the Rent Control Tribunal by which the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Additional Rent Controller allowing eviction of four tenants and dismissing the petitions of the owners for the eviction of the other three. These appeals were filed in the backdrop of the following circumstances; (2) Inder Saran and his widowed mother, lndrani Saran, for short, the owners, are displaced persons from West Pakistan and had apparently affluent background prior to the partition of lndia. Their claim to the immoveable property left by the family behind on, the partition of India is...
Pearelal and Sons (E.P.) (P) Ltd. Vs. V/O Mashpriborintorg and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1978
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi217
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) Some interesting questions have been argued m these Civil Revisions which arise out of four contracts dated May 5, 1965. June 3. 1965, July 30, 1965 and September 22, 1965 entered into between the Petitioners. M/s. Pearey Lal & Sons (East Punjab) (P) Ltd.. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioners' and 'the Company') and M/s. V/O 'Mashpriborintorg' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Russian Party' or as 'Respondent No. 1'). All the contracts were identical so far as is material for the present case and the dispute is regarding the effect of a clause which is common to all the contracts. I shall set out the facts in one of these cases (C.R. 104/75) in order to appreciate the contentions that have been raised. (2) On May 4, 1965 the Russian Party and the Company entered into an agreement whereby the former sold and the latter bought certain goods mentioned in Annexures A to C to the contract 'amounting to the total Cif Indian port value of Rs. 67,057.74' less 10 p...
Mohindar Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1978
Reported in: 1979RLR319
Rajendar Sachar, J. (1) This is a petition against order of dismissal passed by S.P. on 8th April 1968 as affirmed by D.I.G. by his order dated 20.11.1968 and by the I.G. Police by his order dated 14 1.69 and the further order of Lt. Governor conveyed by memo dated 7.11.69 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. (2) This case is off shoot of what is commonly known as 'Policemen Agitation' which took place in April 1967. It appears that a large number of policemen abstained from work ; many of them were suspended and against many of them criminal cases were filed. The petitioner who had joined as a constable was at that time working as an Offg. Head Constable as per the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent. On 27.1.1968 the petitioner was charged as follows :-(...)...... (3) The petitioner denied the allegations, and enquiry was held, the Enquiry officer found that petitioner was collecting funds at the time when pay was being disbursed to the police personnel. He found the...
R. Prakash Vs. Chowdhary Plastic Works
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT82
Sultan Singh J.(1) On 13-6-1977, notice was given to Mr. Mangat Ram Chaudhary, proprietor of M/s. Chaudhary Plastic Works, defendant to show cause why his property should not be attached, and he be detained in civil prison under Rule 2-A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as inserted by Act 104 of 1976). This order will dispose of the said show cause notice. (2) The plaintiff was granted patent No. 125113 of 1970 with respect to a method of producing a printed film and a printed film produced thereby from 35 mm cinematograph film strips in the ships of a circle or disc which is capable of being used in a specially adopted viewer. The images of this disc lie on a path defining a circle. The claims as mentioned in the said patent are under :- '(i) A process of production a printed film comprising the steps of exposing in a spaced relation a plurality of images on a length of a negative film, said length being twice the height of said film, said images lying on a path defining a ...
Widramac Sales (P) Ltd., New Delhi Vs. J.E.C. Cabmac (P) Ltd., New Del ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi138
ORDER1. The defendant (Mls. Jec Cabmac (P) Ltd.) by, this application filed under Order V11 Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil P. C. contends that the plaintiff having fixed the value of the relief claimed by it in the suit . at Rs. 200/-, the plaint is liable to be returned to the plaintiff to be presented to the court having jurisdiction to entertain a claim of Rupees 200/- as the value for the purpose of jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act has to be the same. It is further contended that it is not permissible to state different values of the suit claims for different purposes and that no plaintiff has a right to choose a court 'to which he is not entitled under law'. Besides, it is alleged that the value arrived at by the plaintiff is-not in consonance with Order Vii, Rule 2 which requires the plaintiff td state approximately the amount or value sued for after the exercise of reasonable diligence.2. The plaintiff traversing the contentions of the ...
R. Prakash Vs. Chowdri Plastic Works
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1978
Reported in: ILR1985Delhi685
Sultan Singh, J.(1) On 13-6-1977, notice was given to Mr. Mangat Ram Chaudhary, proprietor of M/s. Chaudhary Plastic Works, defendant to show cause why his property should not be attached, and he be detained in civil prison under Rule 2A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as inserted by Act 104 of 1976). This order will dispose of the said show cause notice.(2) The plaintiff was granted patent No. 125113 of 1970 with respect to a method of producing a printed film and a printed film produced thereby from 35 mm cinematograph film strips in the shape of a circle or disc which is capable of being used in a specially adapted viewer. The images of this disc lie on a path defining a circle. The claims as mentioned in the said patent are as under : '(I)A process of production a printed film comprising the steps of exposing in a spaced relation a plurality of images on a length of a negative film, said length being twice the height of said film, said images lying on a path defining a ...
Manjula and Vs. Sijresh Deshmukh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi93; ILR1978Delhi395; 1979RLR261
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a matrimomd reference. The wife sued the husband for nullity of marriage on the ground of his impotency. She presented a petition on 28th May, 1977 to the District Court under s. 18 read with s. 19(1) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (the Act), praying that her marriage may be declared null and void on the ground that her husband was impotent at the time of marriage and at the time of the institution of the suit. The husband appeared. He filed a written statement on 30th August, 197/ contesting the petition. On 14th November, 1977 counsel for the husband made a statement before the court that he had been instructed by his client to withdraw from the case. As the husband withdrew from the: arena of contest, the wife's petition was tried as an undefended cause. (2) Appearing as her own witness, the wife made a statement in support of the petition. The Additional District Judge was satisfied on evidence that the husband was impotent. He declared the marr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »