Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-2009
Reported in : LC2009(2)229; 2009(40)PTC519(Del)
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This appeal bearing RFA (OS) No. 25/2006 arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13 th January, 2006 in Suit No. 1480/2002. 2. Since certain common issues arise in this appeal and the other two appeals i.e. FAO (OS) No. 326/2007 filed by Dart Industries Inc. and FAO (OS) No. 447/2008 filed by Mattel Inc., on the question of interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act read with Section 2(d) of the Designs Act and Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act and their interplay with each other, we have permitted the parties in the connected appeals also to make submissions on the common legal principles arising in these appeals. However, the aforesaid two appeals bearing FAO(OS) Nos. 326/2007 and 447/2008 will be taken up for hearing on facts and other pleas after the pronouncement of the judgment in the present appeal bearing RFA(OS) No. 25/2006 in the appeal titled Microfibres v. Girdhar & Co. and Anr. 3. The appellant manufactures and sells uphol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-03-2009
Reported in : 2009LC(DEL)32
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR No. 235/2004 registered at P.S. Seema Puri, at the instance of the 2nd respondent, on the allegations that on an inspection conducted at the premises of the petitioner it was found that the petitioner indulged in the theft of electricity and, therefore, he was liable to be punished under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 (now, Section 135 of the New Act) read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The inspection was carried on 21.04.2004 and on the same day the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint which resulted in registration of the FIR.2. After conducting investigation the Police filed a report before the Special Judge and summons were issued to the appellant. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition and made the following prayers: i) To quash the FIR No. 235/2004, P.S. Seema Puri, Delhi under Section 39 of Indian Electricity Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-08-2009
Republic of Iraq v. Beaty - 07-1090 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 REPUBLIC OF IRAQ V. BEATY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES REPUBLIC OF IRAQ v . BEATY etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 071090.Argued April 20, 2009Decided June 8, 2009 The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) prohibits suits against other countries in American courts, 28 U. S.C. 1604, with certain exceptions. One exception, 1605(a)(7) (now repealed), stripped a foreign state of immunity in any suit arising from certain acts of terrorism that occurred when the state was designated as a sponsor of terrorism under 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 or 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Iraq was designated as a sponsor of terrorism in 1990, but in 2003, following the American-led invasion of Iraq, Congress enacted the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act (EWSAA), 1503 of which included a proviso claus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-08-2009
Reported in : (2009)21VST353(P& H)
M.M. Kumar, J.1. The instant appeal filed under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for brevity, 'the VAT Act') is directed against the order dated April 11, 2008 (P5) passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'), holding that the delay in filing the claim for input-tax credit should have been condoned as per the provisions of Section 14 of the VAT Act and Rule 25(1)(b) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for brevity, 'the VAT Rules').2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the controversy raised are that the VAT Act has come into force with effect from April 1, 2005, which has repealed the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, 'the Sales Tax Act') with effect from March 31, 2005. It is pertinent to notice that under Section 5(1A) of the Sales Tax Act the State Government has declared various goods on which tax was levied at the first stage of sale and under proviso to the section, sale of such goods at a su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-17-2009
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR133; 2009(111)BomLR1745
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioners who claim that they are social workers and except Petitioner No. 3, all other Petitioners have been Members of Legislative Assembly of Maharashtra in the past. It is averred that Respondent No. 3 is a body set up by Respondent No. 1 - Union of India which had published a booklet/brochure in the name of 'JAWAHARLAL NEHRU NATIONAL RENEWAL MISSION'. Being interested in the welfare of the people of Maharashtra, the Petitioners have filed this Petition. According to the Petitioners, the action of the Respondents in adopting resolution of repealing the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act, 1976 (herein after referred to as the 'said Act') is in violation of the constitutional rights vested in the people of Maharashtra, more particularly as enumerated in Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 3 and 39 of the Constitution of India and Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are failing to perform their public duties. The State Government, in the Assembly agreed to repeal the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-09-2009
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR616; 2009(111)BomLR2243
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The Petitioners by this petition take exception to the designation of the land which is the subject matter of this petition for the purpose of rehabilitation of slum dwellers and foot path dwellers by effecting minor modifications in the final development plan.2. The facts that are relevant and material are as follows: The Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. 54.93% share of the Petitioner No. 1 company are held by the Government of India. The Petitioner No. 1 carries on business of Petroleum products. The Petitioner No. 2 is the share holder of the Petitioner No. 1 company and is working as General Manager at the Refinery of the Petitioner No. 1 in Mumbai. According to the Petitioner No. 1, the Petitioner No. 1 set up a refinery in 1955 at Mahul, Chembur. The Petitioners produce and refine about 12 million metric tones per annum of petroleum products, such as Motor Spirits, High Speed Diesel, Aviation Turbine Fuel, Liquified Petroleum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-27-2009
Reported in : 2009(171)LC254(Madras); 2010(249)ELT324(Mad)
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The above writ appeals are directed against the common order passed in W.P. Nos. 336 and 341 of 2009, dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein.2. In W.P. Nos. 10330, 12250 and 13366 of 2009, the petitioners seek to quash the public notice No. 140/2008 dated 31.12.2008 and to direct the first respondent therein to accept the candidature of the petitioners for the grant of licence under Regulation 9(1) of the CHARL, 2004 so as to act as Customs House Agent.3. Since the issues involved in the writ petitions as well as in the writ appeals are identical, both the writ petitions and writ appeals are heard together and this Common Judgment is passed.4. (i) The case of the appellants and the writ petitioners is that they are engaged in the work of clearance of goods through Customs for the past several years and they are claiming that they have all passed the examination prescribed as per Regulation No. 9 of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : May-04-2009
Surjit Singh, J.1. Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for judicial review of the order dated 3rd November, 2000, passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (now abolished), whereby Original application, filed by respondent Brahma Nand, has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the petitioners to treat him as Government servant and to grant him pension and other retiral benefits available to Government servants, in accordance with the rules application to such servants.2. Respondent Brahma Nand was employed as a clerk by District Board, Kangra, in the year 1942. He was confirmed in the year 1945. Kangra District remained part of Punjab upto the year of 1966, when on reorganization of the erstwhile State of Punjab, the area of Kangra, Kulllu and certain other Districts had been merged with the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. In the year 1962, when Kangra was still part of Punjab, an Act called the Punj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-22-2009
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR737
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner who is a practising advocate and who also claims to be a public spirited citizen, has approached this Court by way of present Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein, on the strength of Constitutional mandate contained in Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India, he questions the authority of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to hold the posts of `Parliamentary Secretaries' and enjoy the status of Cabinet Minister and also questions respondent Nos. 5 to 7 appointed to different posts in the State administration, as to how they enjoy the status and rank of Cabinet Minister. He also prays that the orders at Annexures `P2' collectively and `P4' collectively relating to respective group of respondents be revoked and cancelled being violative of the Constitutional mandate.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the recent Assembly Elections which were held in May 2007, resulted in the fractured mandate from the elect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-21-2009
Reported in : LC2010(1)71
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This order will dispose I.A. No. 8463/2008 (filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2) and I.A. No. 11439/2008 (filed by the first defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4) in CS (OS) No. 1365/2008.2. The brief facts necessary for deciding these applications are that the plaintiff, Asian Plaints Ltd. filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's registered trade mark/logo 'Asian Paints Apcolite Premium Gloss Enamel' and the copyright in the artwork in the said mark/logo. It is alleged that the defendants have come out with products under the marks 'Great Asian Premium Glossy Enamel', 'Great Asian Hi-Gloss Synthetic Enamel' and 'Super Asian Premium Synthetic Enamel' which are deceptively similar, in terms of the trade mark/logo, the trade mark and the artwork, to the plaintiff's well known product.3. The plaintiff submits that it is engaged in the business, inter alia, of manufacturing and marketing paints,...
Tag this Judgment!