Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3503(SC); [2008(4)JCR150(SC)]; JT2008(9)SC37; (2008)5MLJ1402(SC); 2008(8)SCALE557; (2008)8SCC12; 2008AIRSCW6100
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Defendants-Appellants are before us, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 3.11.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 144 of 1981 allowing the appeal of the respondent from a judgment and order dated 31.01.1981 passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 1, Jaipur City in Civil Suit No. 67 of 1977, whereby and whereunder a suit filed by the respondent herein for declaration of his title, permanent injunction and possession was dismissed.3. At the outset, we may notice the genealogical tree of the parties, which is as under: Maulana Ziauddin Sahib | Gulam Rassol Sahib | Syed Imamuddin Sahib | _____________________________________________________ | | | Syed Mahiuddin Sahib Syed Kamaluddin Sahib Syed Sarfuddin Sahib | | ________________________ | | | | |Moinddin Badruddin Faridduin | ______________________________________ | | | Syed Syed Syed Aminuddin Sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT DELHI) ORDER No. 230/2013 V. Ravi, Technical Member: The applicant herein are seeking the removal of two registered trade marks under no.336774 B (SURMI TONE) and No.510489 (SURMI) of the respondent on the following grounds.: The applicant is a partnership firm consisting of Shri Kanwal Kishore Jain and others and are in the business of manufacturing and marketing ayurvedic medicinal preparations including surma, surmi, kajal and eye drops since 1937-38. These goods are used for the beautification of eyes as well as for the treatment of the eye disease. The words surma and surmi are generic expression and have direct reference to the character and quality of the goods. The applicant have adopted surma as a part of their trading style. They have also been selling other ayurvedic products such as balm, churan etc. The applicant have evolved a system where the first portion of their mark denotes the trade mark and the later portion describes the goods. They are t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.C. 1633/2017 MANDEEP LAMBA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rana Kunal, Advocate. Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) & ANR. ....Respondent Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL ORDER1808.2017 The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal % 1. Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.178/2016, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station IGI Airport, New Delhi .2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.05.2015 a complaint was received at P.S. IGI Airport, Delhi from the Security Shift Incharge/Dhananjay, alleging that during screening 8 live cartridges of 7.65 GFL were detected and recovered from the check-in baggage of the petitioner. On that day, the petitioner was departing for Lucknow from New Delhi, via Jet Airways Flight No.9W2637. During interrogation, the petitioner failed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present: The Honble Justice Samapti Chatterjee WP2068of 2002 Gyan Bharati Vidyapith & Anr. Vs The Director of School Education & Others For the Petitioners : Mr. Bhaskar Sen, Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Koushik Chowdhury, Learned Advocate Ms. Sayan Roy Chowdhury, Learned Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pramit Kr. Ray, Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Arik Banerjee, Learned Advocate Mr. Rajib Mullick, Learned Advocate For the State : Mr. Joyotosh Majumder, Asst. Addl. Advocate General Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Learned Advocate Ms. Debjani Roy, Learned Advocate Heard on :22. 06.2015, 08.07.2015, 14.07.2015, 22.07.2015, 29.07.2015, 04.08.2015, 25.08.2015, 04.09.2015, 18.09.2015, 24.09.2015 , 27.11.2015 & 02.12.2015 Judgment on : February 29, 2016 Samapti Chatterjee, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the impugned memo dated 29th May, 2002 issued by the Director of School Education, West Be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1511; 1983(1)Crimes20(SC); 1982(2)SCALE879; (1982)3SCC466; [1983]1SCR569; 1982(14)LC885(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Appellant Kishan Chand Mangal was convicted by the learned Special Judge (A.C.D. Cases), Jaipur, Rajasthan, for having committed offences under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count with a further direction that both the sentences will run concurrently. After an unsuccessful appeal to the High Court of Rajasthan, he has preferred this appeal by special leave.2. Appellant at the relevant time was serving as Factory Inspector, Ajmer and in that capacity he accompanied by his friend paid a visit on November 20, 1974, to the factory named 'Krishna Industries' whose proprietor was one Rajendra Dutt. Appellant said that his visit being after a lapse of one and a half year, the proprietor should pay him pocket money. Rajendra D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :30. 08.2013 Judgment pronounced on :09. 09.2013 W.P.(C) 1631/2012 VINOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Counsel for the petitioner. versus THE STATE & ORS ..... Respondents Through:Mr.Anjum Javed, Advocate for the respondents with Inspector P.S. Naushad. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN V.K. JAIN, J.The only issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the respondent No.3 was justified in refusing an arm Licence to the petitioner.2. The petitioner submitted an application dated 11.01.2011 for grant of an arm licence, in order to secure his life, property and business activities. The said application was rejected vide order dated 07.03.2011, on the same ground that the petitioner did not have any specific threat. Being aggrieved from the said decision, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. The appeal was rejected on the ground that there was no specific threat to the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:20. 09.2013 + W.P.(C) 5959 of 2013 SAHIL KOHLI Through: ..... Petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel, GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) CM No.13137/2013 (Exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions. WP (C) No.5959/2013 The petitioner before this Court, who is a Doctor by profession, applied for grant of a fire arm licence for his personal safety. The said application was rejected vide order 26.12.2012, of the Licensing Authority without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Being aggrieved from the rejection of his application, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Lieutenant Governot of Delhi. After hearing the petitioner through his counsel, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was no specific threat to the petitioners life or property, which would j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1935All989; 159Ind.Cas.290
Harries, J.1. The 13 appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1046 of 1934, were convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of the Etawah District of an offence under Section 399, Penal Code. The appellant, Ram Nath, was sentenced under that section to a term of six years rigorous imprisonment, the appellant, Khuda Bux was sentenced under that section read with Section 75, Penal Code, to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, whereas the remaining 11 appellants were sentenced under that section each to a term of five years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellants Ram Prasad and Gulzari were also charged with an offence under Section 307, Penal Code. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced under that section to a term of five years' rigorous imprisonment which was made to run concurrently with the sentence previously referred to which was imposed upon them under Section 399, Penal Code. The appellants, Ram Prasad, Gulzari and Sbiama were further charged with an offence under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1946Bom423; (1946)48BOMLR90
Harilal Kania, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Joint First Class Sur-Judge at Ahmedabad. The respondents filed this suit against the appellant to restrain him from working in the Rohit Mills, as a weaving master. The appellant had agreed to serve the second respondents under an agreement dated March 28, 1944. The period of service was three years commencing from January 1, 1944. It appears from the record that the appellant was in the service of the second respondents as a weaving master for several years before this agreement was entered into. As the second respondents are the managing agents of a number of mills they reserved liberty to engage the appellant in any of the mills of which they were managing agents. With this general idea the agreement in question was entered into. Clauses 4, 8, 9 and 10 of the agreement are relevant. They run in these terms:-4. That the said weaving master will neither absent himself from his work without leave nor engage hims...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri Amit Chandra, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the the impugned orders dated 23.02.2005 (Annexure-3) and 10.02.2006 (Annexure-6) passed by O.P. Nos. 3 and 2 respectively. 3. Facts in brief as submitted by Sri Amit Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner in the month of January, 1989 applied for an arms licence of D.B.B.L. Gun after completing all the necessary formalities as required for the said purpose to the Licencing Authority/District Magistrate, Gonda, thereafter the necessary reports etc. were called by the said authority. 4. As no heed has been paid in the matter in question, so the petitioner for redressal of his grievances approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 5360 (MS) of 2004 Satya Prakash v. State of U.P. and others, disposed of vide order and judgment dated 06.12.2004 ...
Tag this Judgment!