Court : Delhi
Reported in : 124(2005)DLT278; 2006(32)PTC91(Del)
..... (2 of 1911) is hereby repealed. (2)without prejudice to the provisions contained ..... of the act under the 1911 act and those proceedings be continued as if the 2000 act had not been passed. the corresponding provision to section 51a of 1911 act dealing with cancellation of registration is section 19 of 2000 act where the ambit and scope has been expanded and additional grounds have been added. 7. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a learned single judge of the bombay high court had the occasion to consider the effect of this repeal provision of 2000 act in faber castell aktiengesellschaft v. pikpen (p) ltd. 2003 (27) ptc 538. the relevant section 48 is as under :'48.repeal and savings.-(1)the design act, 1911 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... matter that the learned single judge then proceeded to decide the cancellation as empowered by the old act 1911 under section 51a wherein high court could entertain the cancellation proceedings. but after the amendment and enactment of 2000 act, as per the design act, 2000, the powers to hear cancellation vests before the controller general of designs and the high court powers are in a away divested to hear cancellation petition except to the extent of hearing the challenges to the validity as a defence to the infringement proceeds. the rest of the powers to entertain cancellation are taken away by the act of 2000. once, the said powers are divested from this court by way ..... act, 1970 repealed the provisions of the patents and designs act, 1911, so far as they related to patents. however, the provisions relating to designs were not repealed and continued to govern the designs law. india joined the wto as a member state in 1995. consequently, the patents & designs act, 1911 was repealed and the designs act, 2000 was enacted, to make the designs law in india trips compliant. the definition of design in the designs act, 2000 is more or less the same as that of the 1911 act. novelty under the 1911 act was determined with reference to india, whereas under the designs act, 2000 novelty is determined on a global basis.38. the legislative policy behind the patent and designs act being statutory in nature is that by applying for a patent and design to the patent office and designs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. In this batch of writ petitions, the centripetal issue that has emerged for consideration is whether the Commissioner under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (for brevity, „the DVAT Act) can exercise suo motu power of revision under Section 74A of the DVAT Act in respect of assessments that have been completed under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short, „the DST Act). Be it noted, when these petitions were listed before the Division Bench, the learned counsel for the assessee - petitioner contended that in view of the decisions rendered in International Metro Civil Contractors v. Commissioner of Sales Tax/VAT & Another, [2008] 16 VST 329 (Delhi) and LG Electronics (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes, New Delhi [2008] 16 VST 361 (Delhi) and also regard being had to the terms employed under Section 106 of the DVAT Act which deals with repeal and savings, a suo motu revisional power could not have been exercised. Combating the said submissions, it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER1.Regard being had to the commonality of controversy, these writ petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by a singular order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts in WP(C) No. 3001/2010 are exposited herein.2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, has called in question the legality and validity of the initiation of the revisional proceedings against the petitioner by issuance of notice dated 08.04.2010 under Section 74A read with Section 106 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (for brevity the DVAT Act) by the Commissioner, Trade Taxes, Delhi, the first respondent herein, purporting to revise the orders of the Additional Commissioner dated 14.01.2008 and 25.01.2008 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 44(1991)DLT735
P.N. Nag, J. (1) In this revision petition, the petitioner seeks for setting aside the order dated 30th January, 1989 passed by Shri S. C. Mittal, Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner wherein he has prayed for cancelling the order dated 14th October, 1988 vide which a part of the claim of the suit of the plaintiff covered by issue No. 1 was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn.(2) The relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner, who was the President of defendant No. 1, was managing its affairs and according to him his resignation dated 5-4-1976 was illegal and unenforceable and that he was entitled to continue in the service of defendant No. 1 and all consequential benefits, including recovery of Rs. 19,500. Out of the pleadings of the parties, as many as 10 issues were framed. However issue No. 1, which is relevant to determine the point ill controversy between the parties in the prese...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi649; 1973LabIC754
ORDERSunder Section 33B themselves may be either administrative or quasi-judicial according to the context. An order transferring one industrial dispute from one Labour Court to another for purely administrative reasons, such as a transfer of the concerned officer, or in order to re-distribute the work between different officers, and it is so stated in the order of transfer itself, would be purely administrative and could not be said to be quasi-judicial. On the other hand, if, as in the present case, when proceedings are pending before a Labour Court and evidence is actually being recorded by that Court any transfer from that Court to another on the ground that the presiding officer was prejudiced against one of the parties must obviously be made after notice to the other side. Propriety and fairness would require that the concerned judicial officer should not only be apprised of what is stated against him but also must be given an opportunity of making his own comments on such allega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1978Delhi146; 14(1978)DLT132
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. These two appeals against the order of a learned single Judge holding that the High Court of Delhi has jurisdiction to entertain the applications made by the respondents under S. 51-A of the Designs Act, 1911 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), have been referred to the Full Bench for a fuller consideration of this important question of jurisdiction than it received in the order of the learned single Judge under appeal or in the judicial decisions relied upon and followed by the learned single Judge.2. The respondents in these two appeals each filed a petition under S. 51-A of the Act on the following averments supplemented by oral arguments:-A. Both the respondents and the appellant are carrying on the same trade at Delhi. B. The appellant has got two designs 131357 and 131364 registered in the Register of Designs maintained under Section 46 of the Act. C. These designs had, however, been published in India in respect of laces prior to the date of r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003IIAD(Delhi)88; 2003(2)ARBLR176(Delhi); 103(2003)DLT35; 2003(67)DRJ234; 2003(1)RAJ583
S. Mukerjee, J.1. This is one of the unfortunate examples of the defendants dragging a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for a period of 20 years.2. The brief background of the facts, to the extent required for appreciating the contents involved in the present case, are that the petitioner entered into a contract with DDA for execution of the work of 'Construction of 470 Janta D.U.'s in Pocket 'L' at Dilshad Garden (Group-II) for which an agreement bearing No.400/EE/HDXIX/81-82 was duly executed between the parties. 3. The case of the petitioner is that due to various acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondents, the work could be completed only on 5.11.1986.4. The plaintiff has a pending claims and damages on account of the delay/prolongation of the work, which delay according to the plaintiff is entirely attributable to the respondent.5. The other grievance of the plaintiff is that, in terms of the agreement, the bill for the work was required t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 128(2006)DLT238; 2006(32)PTC157(Del)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff's grievance of violation of its copyright in the artistic works applied to upholstery fabrics and the allegation of an attempt to pass off the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiff has given rise to the present litigation.2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of the USA and is stated to be engaged worldwide in the business relating to manufacturing, marketing, selling and exporting of upholstery fabrics directly or through its subsidiaries and affiliates. The brand name of the plaintiff is stated to be Microforms. The business of the plaintiff is stated to have commenced in the year 1926 and the plaint states that on the upholstery fabrics are printed, unique and original artistic works which are conceptualized and drawn/printed by either its employees or other persons who have assigned the copyright in the works to the plaintiff. More than 1000 people are stated to be employed by the plaintiff and a global annual tu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(106)DRJ882
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for setting aside the Resolution and order dated 14th January 1978 passed by the respondent No. 4 Ishwar Nagar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society') whereby the name of the petitioner had been removed from the list of members of the respondent No. 4 society as well as the confirmation of such an order through the Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 17th May, 1978 and the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 5th November, 1981 on a reference made by the petitioner by the nominee of the Registrar.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:a) The petitioner Dr. P.N. Sharma (hereinafter referred to as 'the Petitioner') was on 11th March 1961 vide membership No. 35 enrolled as a member of the respondent society. The Property No. A-19/A Kailash Colony, New Delhi was purchased by the Petitioner HUF for running a nursing home and in 1969 the nursing home started functi...
Tag this Judgment!