Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-15-2013
..... 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 act, 1970 repealed the provisions of the patents and designs act, 1911, so far as they related to patents. however, the provisions relating to designs were not repealed and continued to govern the designs law.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 consequently, the patents & designs act, 1911 was repealed and the designs act, 2000 was enacted, to make the designs law in india trips compliant.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 : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-25-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :25. 03-2013 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition No.7424 of 2013 And M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 V.Srinivasan .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Chennai-2. 2.The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Chennai-2. 3.The Secretary, TANTRANSCO, Chennai-2. 4.The Chairman cum Director, TANTRANSCO, Chennai-2. .. Respondents PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to Memorandum (Per) No.35421/A18/A181/2012-I dated 19.6.2012 issued by the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an Office Memorandum issued by the Secretariat Branch of the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, clarify...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-16-2013
Form not J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Mr.Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Ms.Justice Shukla Kabir (Sinha) A.P.D.No.216 of 2009 C.S.No.42 of 2006 Coal India Limited -VSApeejay House Private LTD.Heard on : December 18 and 19, 2012 & January 4, 2013. AND A.P.D.No.256 of 2009 C.S.No.72 of 2006 Coal India Limited -VSApeejay House Private LTD.Heard on : January 7 2013. For the Appellant : Mr.Pradip Kumar Dutta, Mr.Partha Basu, Senior Advocate Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Anindya Mitra, Advocate General Mr.Sarbapriya Mukherjee, Advocate Ms.Swati Agarwal, Advocate Mr.Debanjan Mondal, Advocate Judgment on : January 16, 2012. ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J.FACTUAL SCENARIO THIRD FLOOR TENANCY (C.S.No.42 if 2006) Apeejay House Private Limited was the owner of premises no.15, Park Street, Calcutta. Since 1975 Coal India Limited was occupying various portions of the said building as tenant and/or lessee. The subject appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-25-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :25. 09.2013 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and The Honourable Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH Original Side Appeal No.40 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009 Urooj Ahmed, Lords Enterprises(India). 1620-21, Main Bazaar, Lal Kuan, Opp. To Shama Laboratories, Delhi-110 006. ... Appellant -vs- 1.Preethi Kitchen Appliances Private Limited, having its registered office at Technopolis Knowledge Park, Mahakali Caves Road, Chakala, Andheri Post, Mumbai-400 093. 2.Proprietor, Chandra Stores, 43-44, Trunk Road, Porur, Chennai-600 016. (R1 substituted vide order of Court dated 22.2.2012 made in M.P.1/12 in OSA.40/2009) ... Respondents Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 11 of the O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 19.01.2009 made in Application No.5533 of 2008 in C.S.No.949 of 2008. For appellant : Mr.V.P.Raman For respondents : Mr.Arunkarthik Mohan for M/s Sathish Parasaran JUDGMENT M.M.SU...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-02-2013
(This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order of Annx-K dt: 26.05.2012 of the R1 to 4 appointing the R6 as the administrator of the petitioner mutt.) These two writ petitions are directed against the orders / notifications, both dated 26.5.2012, appointing an administrator for Sri. Sosale Vyasaraja Mutt (for short `the Mutt) and constituting a Committee to guide him. The petitioners are also seeking implementation of the endorsement dated 15.10.2004 issued by the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Office, representing the Government, stating that the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short `the new Act') would not apply to the Mutt. The first writ petition (W.P. No.17370/2012) is filed by Mathadhipathi of the Mutt, whereas the second writ petition (W.P. No.17391/2012) is filed by Mr. Sosale N. Prakash, duly appointed by the Mathadhipathi, as an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-02-2013
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: April 2, 2013 + OMP No.790/2012 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY INDIA ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Aljo K. Joseph and Mr.Amith Gupta, Advs. versus MECON - GEA ENERGY SYSTEMS INDIA LTD JV ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.A.P. Vinod, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By this order, I shall dispose of OMP No.790/2012 filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 20th August, 2011 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal by preferring an appeal under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent entered into a contract agreement dated 5th January, 2004 for the widening/ four laning and strengthening of the existing 2 lane carriageway of NH-47, including the bridges from Vytilla to Aroor Junction, totaling a d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-25-2013
V. Gopala Gowda, J.The appellants filed these civil appeals questioning the correctness of the common judgment and order dated 19.11.2003 passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras in W.A. 2652 of 2001, W.A. No. 3090 of 2001, WA 2835 of 2001, WA 3087 of 2001, WA 2836 of 2001, WA 3091 of 2001, WA 3092 of 2001, WA 2837 of 2001, WA 3088 of 2001, WA 2838 of 2001 and WA 3089 of 2001, dismissing the writ appeals thereby affirming the dismissal of writ petitions by wrongly interpreting the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short AICTE Act) and held that even though the University is not required to take permission from the All India Council for Technical Education (for short AICTE), its affiliated colleges are required to do so. Further, the High Court has held, while dismissing the writ appeals, that the appellant colleges should get its course of MCA ratified by AICTE as per the prescribed format which according to the appellants herein is in contr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-25-2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1145 OF 200.ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT OF PRIVATE COLLEGES APPELLANT VS. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5736-5745 OF 200.ADAIKALAMATH COLLEGE ETC. ETC. APPELLANTS VS. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V. Gopala Gowda, J.The appellants filed these civil appeals questioning the correctness of the common judgment and order dated 19.11.2003 passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras in W.A. 2652 of 2001, W.A. No.3090 of 2001, WA 283.of 2001, WA 308.of 2001, WA 283.of 2001, WA 309.of 2001, WA 309.of 2001, WA 283.of 2001, WA 308.of 2001, WA 283.of 2001 and WA 308.of 2001, dismissing the writ appeals thereby affirming the dismissal of writ petitions by wrongly interpreting the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short AICTE Act) and held that even though the University is not requ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-15-2013
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:19. 02.2013 Judgment delivered on:15. 05.2013 CS(OS) 384/2008 MOHAN LAL, PROPRIETOR OF MOURYA INDUSTRIES .....Plaintiff Through: Mr Ashok Goel & Mr Ranjeev Kumar, Advs. Vs SONA PAINT & HARDWARES .....Defendants Through: Mr Mohan Vidhani, Mr Rahul Vidhani & Mr Arun Jain, Advs. Ms Pratibha M. Singh, Advocate, amicus curiae. + CS(OS) 1446/2011 MICOLUBE INDIA LIMITED .....Plaintiff Through: Mr S.K. Bansal, Mr Vikas Khera & Mr Pankaj Kumar, Advs. Vs RAKESH KUMAR Trading as SAURABH INDUSTRIES & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr Pravin Anand & Mr Saif Khan Advs. Mr Sudhir Chandra Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr Jaspreet Sareen & Mr Angad Varma, Advs. for the Interveners. Ms Pratibha M. Singh, Advocate, amicus curiae. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J CS(OS) No. 348/2008 CS(OS) No. 1446/2011 & IA Nos. 9537/2011 (by plaintiff), 13404/2012 (b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-21-2013
APPEALS RELATING TO DEATH SENTENCE PART-1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1728 of 2007 Yakub Abdul Razak Memon .... Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI , Bombay . Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No.609-610 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.628-629 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.637-638 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.365 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.864-865 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.897 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.941-942 of 2008 AND Death Reference Case No.1 of 2011 ******** REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 2 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1728 OF 200.Yakub Abdul Razak Memon .... Appellant (s) Versus State of Maharashtra thr., CBI, Bombay .... Respondent(s) With Batch JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J.1) This appeal and the connected matters have been directed against the final orders and judgments of conviction and sentence passed on various dates by the Presiding Offic...
Tag this Judgment!