Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-18-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)CHN447,2005(30)PTC140(Cal)
..... has come into force. in order to answer this question, the court has to consider the new act as a whole as also the provisions of repeal under the new act.17. chapter xi of the new act deals with the provisions of repeal and saving under section 48. the said section is as under :'48. repeal and savings.--(l) the designs act, 1911 (2 of 1911) is hereby repealed.(2) without prejudice to the provisions contained in the general clauses act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with respect to repeals, any notification, rule, order, requirement, registration, certificate, notice, decision, determination, direction, approval, authorisation, consent, application, request or thing ..... classification under the old act. the new act introduces additional grounds under section 19(1) for cancellation of registration as compared to the grounds in section 51a of the old act. one of the grounds of cancellation in the new act is that the design has been published in india or in any other country prior to the date of registration. but the ground for cancellation under the old act was the publication of the design only in india prior to the date of registration. apart from that there are two additional grounds of cancellation under the new act incorporated under clauses (d) and (e) of section 19(1) of the new act. section 4 of the new act provides for grounds for prohibition of registration of certain designs. section 4 of the new act is also a new provision .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-26-2004
Reported in : AIR2004SC2364; 2004(1)ALD(Cri)1011; (2005)1CALLT24(SC); 2004CriLJ2105; 111(2004)DLT250(SC); JT2004(5)SC352; 2004(5)SCALE67; (2004)4SCC590; 2004(3)SLJ331(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Leave granted.2. By the impugned judgment a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court while upholding that the respondent-accused's conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'), was in order, further held him to be entitled to the benefits available under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). The State has questioned legality of latter view.3. Factual background in short is as follows:Respondent-accused was serving as Commercial Superintendent of the erstwhile DESU office. Proceedings under the Act were initiated against him for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 1,500/- from a consumer Mahabir Prasad (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant'). After trial by the Special Judge, Delhi, he was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 months and a fine of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-03-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)ALLMR215; 2005(1)BomCR40; 2004(4)MhLj1010
Ranjana Desai, J.1. These two petitions challenge the validity of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Maharashtra Act No. 25) (for short, 'the Amending Act'). PIL No. 56 of 2002 is filed by senior advocates, practicing in Pune, in public interest, and Writ Petition No. 841 of 2003 is filed by one Gopal Narayan Dikshit, who has filed a revision application under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Tenancy Act') before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The said revision application is admitted on 24-7-2000 and is pending.2. On 3-7-2002, Rule was issued on PIL No. 56 of 2002. As an interim arrangement, the Divisional Commissioner was directed to entertain appeals/revisions/other proceedings in accordance with law. This court observed that the Divisional Commissioner would pass appropriate interim/interlocutory orders/directions without finally deciding them.3. On 29-7-2003, this court directed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-29-2004
Reported in : AIR2004SC3666; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)333; 2004CriLJ3034; 2004(5)SCALE249; (2004)6SCC59
B.P. Singh, J. 1. The State of West Bengal has preferred this appeal by Special Leave impugning the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta dated 21st February, 1997 in Criminal Revision No.2578 of 1994 whereby the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondents herein holding that the 3rd Special Court, Calcutta appointed under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 for trying offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short Act of 1947) had no jurisdiction to try the respondents for the alleged offences after coming into force of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short Act of 1988) w.e.f. 9th September, 1998. In substance, it held that though the said court was earlier empowered to try offences under the Act of 1947, since no such jurisdiction was conferred upon it afresh after coming into force of the Act of 1988, which repealed the Act of 1947, it had no jurisdiction to try such offences...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-11-2004
Reported in : (2004)3CALLT71(HC),2004(29)PTC665(Cal),[2004]51SCL498(Cal)
..... and remedies in relation to the registration under the designs act, 1911 prior to its repeal, the case of the plaintiff will be governed by the designs act, 1911, and not by the designs act, 2000; and the defence mentioned in section 22(3) of the designs act, 2000 will not be available to the defendant in the present case.8. his alternative contention is that assuming the defence of section 22(3) of the designs act, 2000 is available to the defendant, even then, on facts, there is no ground to question the validity of the registration; and the reasons he mentions to support it are these. prior publication abroad was irrelevant under the designs act, 1911. this new ground of cancellation of registration now made available was not available under the designs act, 1911; and hence it ..... be a matter of substantive law.20. no provision of the designs act, 1911 provided that in a proceeding instituted by the registered proprietor of a design under section 53 thereof, the defendant in the suit was not entitled to take any of the defences which would have been available to such defendant in a proceeding under section 51a thereof. had there been such a provision, it could have been said that under the designs act, 1911 the registered proprietor of a design had a statutory right to obtain injunction without permitting the defendant to take the defence that the registration was invalid. such a right was visualized only in the division .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-29-2004
Reported in : ILR2004KAR2497; 2004(3)KarLJ238; (2004)IILLJ891Kant; (1999)2LLN16
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Since both the appeals are directed against the common order dated 11th September, 2000 made in Writ Petition Nos. 14636 and 15701 of 1998 by the learned Single Judge, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 6347 of 2000 is the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). The said writ appeal is directed against the order made in Writ Petition No. 15701 of 1998. The 1st respondent in the said writ appeal is the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Staff and Workers' Federation represented by its General Secretary (hereinafter referred to as 'the Federation'). The Federation is the appellant in Writ Appeal Nos. 1005 and 1006 of 2001 and the Corporation is the 1st respondent. The said appeals are directed against the order made in Writ Petition No. 14636 of 1998.3. The facts in brief are as hereunder:The workmen employed in the B.T.S. Divis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-05-2004
Reported in : ILR2004KAR4298; 2004(7)KarLJ330
ORDERGopala Gowda, J.1. These petitions are heard together with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 47473/02 is seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 19.12.2002 rejecting his nomination to contest in the election to the Board of Directors of the 3rd respondent's society (hereinafter called the Society in short); for quashing the calendar of events issued by the 2nd respondent for holding the General Body Meeting of the 3rd respondent and election to the Board of Directors of the Society held on 30.12.2002 and further sought for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order at Annexure -B dated 10.5.1999 by which amendment in made to Clause No. 12(a)(3)(d) of the Bye Laws in respect of 'C' Class shares of 3rd respondent.3. In W.Ps. 764-765/03, the petitioners, in addition to the aforesaid prayers, have further sought for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Returning Officer and the Society to hold ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-23-2004
Reported in : 2005(2)BomCR527
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. The point which arises for consideration in the matter is whether the notice demanding arrears of rent in excess of exact amount of rent due and payable by the tenant on the date of issuance of the notice would render such notice to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act' and, therefore, would be invalid and consequently the suit filed on the basis of such notice would not be maintainable. 2. The sub-section (1) of Section 12 provides that a landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenant pays, or is ready and willing to pay, the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases, if any and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of the said Act. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-16-2004
Reported in : AIR2005Kant205
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. (i) In these batch of writ petitions, the prayer in W.P. Nos. 33120-21 and 33237-29, 48429-38, 46814, 46815, 46816, 46817, 49936, 49937 and 51804/2003 filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC)/North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as 'NWKRTC' in short) is to quash the Contract Carriage Permits granted to private operators, some of them are also contesting respondents in these petitions. The contentions urged in these petitions, objections filed by both State and permit holder respondents and other allied matters pertaining to these writ petitions are dealt with in paragraph 4 of this order.(ii) In W.P. Nos. 30657-60 and 52160-61/2003 filed by private operators/permit holders of the vehicles, the prayer is to direct the State respondents not to enforce the terms, conditions and instructions issued in the Circular No. STA.6/PR-02/2003-04, dated 5-4-2003 issued by the Chairman, Karnataka State Transport Authori...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Nov-05-2004
Reported in : [2004(4)JCR786(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This writ application is directed, against the order dated 20.8.2004 passed by the learned Chief Justice of this Court in AA Nos. 3 and 5 of 2004 in purported exercise of power Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') whereby the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Arbitrator has been rejected.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The petitioner-firm was allotted three contracts relating to widening of road at National Highway No 23 at different stages. These works were identified as job Nos. 515, 516 and 538. Petitioner's case is that it completed both the works within the stipulated time to the satisfaction of the respondents-authorities, but due to some poor sanctioned specification in the agreement itself, the construction work which was carried out, subsequently became damaged and petitioner was directed to repair the same even after the lapse of liability period and...
Tag this Judgment!