Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1995)1GLR566
M.R. Calla, J.1. The petitioner was working as Chief Officer in Junagadh Municipality in the month of May 1994. While the elected body in the municipality of Junagadh was functioning within its tenture a resolution was passed extending the services of the petitioner for the period on and from 1st August 1994 to 31st January 1995. On 18th July 1994, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner by the Municipal Administrator as to why the order granting extension for the period aforesaid should not be withdrawn and the Collector, Junagadh also gave show cause notice to the petitioner on 29th July 1994 as to why the order granting extension should not be revoked. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he had filed Civil Suit against the show cause notice issued by the Administrator of the Municipality and in that Civil Suit the interim order was passed to the effect that respondent authorities would not pass any order to the prejudice of the petitioner before 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
CIRCUIT SITTING AT DELHI ORDER(No.164/2012) V. Ravi, Technical Member: 1. This is a case where a trade mark has been registered by a former business associate of the proprietor of a trade mark without authority. Section 146 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (in short Act) permits the proprietor to oppose or seek cancellation or rectification of the mark from the register in such contingency. The time within which such action has to be taken is three years from the date he is aware of the conduct of the agent. The fact giving rise to this rectification petition is detailed below. 2. The applicant Z-Medica Corporation a US based company founded in 2002 is a global leader in manufacturing products that stop traumatic bleeding. Their predecessor M/s. On Site Gas Systems secured a patent in 1989 for invention of a novel method of treating wounds using zeolite, a naturally occurring mineral. The applicant product are life saving hemostatic agent manufactured and marketed under the trade mark QUIK...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ 63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision :29. h September, 2014 % + CS(OS) 1057/2011 M/S P.P. JEWELLERS ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms.Mamta Jha and Ms.Kritika Seth, Advocates versus PP GOLD CONSULTANCY PVT LTD Through ..... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, unfair competition, dilution, rendition of accounts of profits, damages and delivery up.2. Summons in the suit and notice in the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, were issued on 04.05.2011, 22.07.2011 and 16.11.2011. Since the defendant could not be served in the ordinary way an application under Order V Rule 20 CPC was filed by the plaintiff, which application was allowed and defendant was served by way of publication. Despite service none appeared for the defendant, consequently defendant was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 13.02.2012 and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 15.5.2014 and consequential order dated 29.5.2014 and the order of removal from service dated 4.6.2014 (Annexure P/11, P/12 and P/13 respectively).. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed on contract basis on the post of Task Manager in the year 2007 at Jila Panchayat, Seoni after due selection under the Mid Day Meal Scheme introduced by the State Government. The services of the petitioner were found satisfactory and, therefore, the period of contract of the petitioner was extended continuously. The last extension was to end in the year 2014. However, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in respect of certain irregularities and though no financial irregularities were alleged against the petitioner, despite filing of the reply to the said show cause notice, the contract period of the petitioner was not extended. The Chief Executive Officer passed the first order on 15 th May, 2014 taking away t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Sudhir Kumar Katriar and Kishore K. Mandal, JJ.1. Eleven persons, namely, Gupteshwar Sah, Ramesh Prasad Singh, Krishna Prabhakar, Anand Mohan, Ramjee Singh, Chandra Mohan Singh, Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, Harendra Singh, Raghunath Singh, Kanhaiya Prasad and Rajendra Prasad Singh, have joined this appeal, preferred in terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court. They are aggrieved by the order dated 18.5.1999, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC. No. 2101 of 1998 Gupteshwar Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. whereby the writ petition has not been entertained on the ground that it raises a stale claim.2. The facts essential for disposal of the appeal may be indicated briefly. The same shall be drawn from the paper-book of the writ proceedings excepting specifically indicated. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ proceedings.3. The respondent authorities had issued an advertisement on 10.4.1981, inviting application...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1/27 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE27h DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HONBLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI W.P.Nos.57324-325/2015 c/w W.P.No.36174/2017, W.P.No.32770/2013 & W.P.No.7630/2012 (GM-KEB) IN W.P.Nos.57324-57325/2015: BETWEEN: Talisma Corporation Private Limited 3rd Floor, Olympia Building-01, Bagmane Tech Park, CV Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bengaluru-560 093. Represented by its Controller-Finance and Authorised Signatory Mr. Vijay Chandran N.C. Aged 35 years. (By Sri Devaiah I.S., Advocate) AND:1. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, ...Petitioner K.R. Circle, Bengaluru-560 001. Represented by its Managing Director.2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical, C2 Sub-Division BESCOM Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560 003. ...Respondents (By Sri. Sriranga, Advocate for R1 & R2) Date of Order 27-11-2017 W.P.Nos.57324-325/2015 and connected matters Talisma Corporation Private Limited & others Vs. The Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited & ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1996)55TTJ(Ahd.)167
These three appeals are directed against the order of the learned CIT passed under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a private limited company established by two technocrats returning to India from abroad. Dr. Kirit C. Vyas and Mrs.Bharati Vyas returned to India after staying about 16 years in the USA, established the Startronic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Mrs. Vyas has a Master degree in the field from IIT, Chicago and Dr. Vyas has a Doctorate degree. All the machinery required for this project was imported from the USA. The payment of the duty and installation costs of the machinery was financed by the Gujarat State Finance Corporation, Ahmedabad, Gujarat.3. The assessee company is engaged in the business of data processing, system designing and software development and supply. While completing the assessments under s. 143(3) the learned Assessing Officer (AO) allowed to the assessee company following deductions : 4. Later on, on perusal of the records of the IT proceedings in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1934Cal745,152Ind.Cas.830
ORDER1. This rule is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Darjeeling, dated 8th June 1933, allowing an application of the opposite parties 1 and 2 for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against them Under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C.2. The rule was issued on only one ground, namely, that the Subordinate Judge wrongly assumed jurisdiction to go into further enquiries as to the date of knowledge of the passing of the ex-parte decree, in view of the fact that the substituted service was due service according to law under Article 164, Limitation Act, and the period of limitation commenced to run from the date of the service. It appears from the order sheet of the learned Subordinate Judge in the suit that on 8th September 1931 the Court recorded the following order:Summons not properly served. Plaintiffs' advocate asks for summons Under Order 5, Rule 20. Issue summons accordingly. Fix 20th September 1931.3. On 20th September 1931, the following order was recorded:Defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~43. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1151/2014 % Judgment reserved on 4.9.2014 % Judgment pronounced on 14.11.2014 EDUCARE LIMITED & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through : Ms.Anuradha Salhotra, Mr.Sumit Wadhwa, Mr.Zeeshan Khan and Mr.Tushar John, Advocates versus S.K. SACHDEV & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr.M.K. Miglani, Mr.Aayushmaan Gauba and Mr.Kapil Kumar Giri, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J IA.No.7512/2014 & IA.No.10541/2014 1. This is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While issuing summons to the defendants this court had restrained the defendants from using the trademark/ trade name, ShreeRam World School and the domain name www.shreeram.in, as it was deceptively and phonetically similar to the plaintiffs trade-mark SHRI RAM / SHRIRAM in relation to its services.2. IA.No.10541/2014 has been filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the interim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1801 of 2009 ------- Chetan Lal Ganjir, son of Late Praduman Singh Ganjir, resident of Qr. No. E-19/Sector-I, H.E.C Colony, P.O Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi-834004. ... Petitioner Versus 1.Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 2.Directorate General, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs) Block No. 13, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 3.Deputy Inspector General of (Personnel) office of Directorate General, Central Industrial Security Force, Lodhi Road, , C.G.O. Complex, New Delhi. 4.D.I.G, C.I.S.F, East and North East Airport HQrs, Kolkatta-107. 5.Commandant, C.I.S.F Unit, H.E.C., Ranchi-834994. 6.Union Public Service Commission through its Secretary, U.P.S.C., Dholpur House, Sahjahan Road, New Delhi. .... Respondents ------ CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Sekhar, Advocate. For the Respondents : M...
Tag this Judgment!