Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-23-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:23. 01-2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Civil Suit No.562 of 2007 M.C.Jayasingh ...Plaintiff Vs 1. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (MIDHANI) rep.by its Managing Director, Kanchanbagh Hyderabad 500 058.2. Apollo Hospitals, Jubilee Hills Road Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 033.3. Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited Ali Towers, IV Floor, 55, Greams Road Chennai 600 006.4. Cancer Institute (W.I.A) (Regional Cancer Centre), Canal Bank Road Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. ...Defendants ----- Plaint under Order VII, Rule 1, CPC, read with Order IV, Rule of the Original Side Rules, Section 108 read with Section 50(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 and Section 22(2)(b) of the Designs Act, 2000. ----- For Plaintiff : Mr.M.Sundar For Defendant-1 : Mr.V.Chandrakanthan For Defendants 2&3 : Mr.C.Manishankar For Defendant-4 : Mr.N.L.Rajah ----- JUDGMENT This is a suit for infringement of patents and designs and for rendition of accounts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-02-2014
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 Of The Constitution Of India, With A Prayer To Declare That The Order At Annexure-A Passed In W.P. 26788/2005 On The Pile Of This Court As It Is One Without Jurisdiction Does Not Bind The Petitioner And Quash The Order Dated 8.10.2010 Passed In Misc. Case Nos.37, 54, 70/2008, Misc. Case N0.8/2009 And 2/10 On The File Of I Addl. District Judge, D.K. Mangalore and The Mokthesari Sannad Dated 24.1.2012 Issued By The Respondent No.9 Vide Annexures-B and C Respectively.) 1. The petitioner herein is seeking review of the order dated 04.02.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.No.26788/2005 and declare that the said order does not bind the petitioner. The petitioner is also seeking that the order dated 08.10.2010 passed in Misc. Case Nos.37, 54, 70/2008, 08/2009 and 02/2010 on the file of the Addl. District Judge, Da.Ka., Mangalore and the Mokthesari Sannad dated 24.01.2012 issued by the eighth respondent be quashed. 2. The concise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-02-2014
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE2D DAY OF SEPTEMBER2014BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION Nos.27894-27898/2012 (GM-R/C) ... PETITIONER BETWEEN: B KEERTHIVARMA SHETTY AGED ABOUT47YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. B NAGKUMAR SHETTY, R/AT698A, "YESHODA" BETKERI, PRANTHYA VILLAGE, MOODABIDRI-574 227 (By Sri. K SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADV.) AND:1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPT., M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-01 2. SRI. D SAMPATH SAMRAJYA AGED ABOUT54YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. DHARMA SAMRAJYA, R/AT SHIMUNJE GUTHU, SHIRTHADY POST, MANGALORE TALUK, PIN-574124, D.K.3. SRI. BHASKER S KATTEMAAR S/O LATE NAGASWAMY AGED ABOUT72YEARS, R/A KATTEMAAR, KELENJAR VILLAGE, POST KUPPEPADAVU, MANGALORE TALUK, PIN-574162 D.K. 2 4. DR. M. VIDYADHARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT66YEARS, S/O SRI. B K DHARMAPALA SHETTY, R/AT VIJAYA MAHAL, KADRI KAMBLA ROAD, MANGALORE, PIN-575004 D.K. DIST.5. SRI. M SUNIL KEERTHI S/O LATE SRI JAGATHPAL AGED ABOUT65YEA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-19-2014
1. The facts of this case can fairly be described as exotic, but very few of them are relevant to the present appeal. Dr Williams claims to be the victim of a fraud instigated by the Nigerian State Security Services which occurred in 1986. His case is that he was induced to serve as guarantor of a bogus transaction for the importation of foodstuffs into Nigeria. In connection with that transaction, he paid $6,520,190 to an English solicitor, Mr Reuben Gale, to be held on trust for him on terms that it should not be released until certain funds had been made available to him in Nigeria. Dr Williams says that in fraudulent breach of that trust, Mr Gale, knowing that those funds were not available to him in Nigeria, paid out $6,020,190 of the money to an account of the Central Bank of Nigeria with Midland Bank in London, and that he pocketed the remaining $500,000. The Central Bank is said to have been party to Mr Gale's fraud. The Bank applied for an order setting aside the permission gi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : May-08-2014
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Validity of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 served on the petitioner company, whereby reassessment has been ordered is challenged by it in these two writ petitions. Notice in Writ Petition No.2005/2013 relates to reassessment for A.Y. 2006 “ 2007 whereas notice in Writ Petition No. 6606/2013 pertains to the reassessment for A.Y. 2008 “ 2009. Since grounds of challenge in both the writ petitions are same, they are being decided by this common Judgment. 3. Petitioner is a private limited company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is a regular assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short œthe Act?). The petitioner company is the authorized dealer for spare parts of Kirloskar Pumps and does exclusive supply to mines of Western Coalfields Limited and South Eastern Coalfields Limited. 4. Petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-03-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI WEDNESDAY, THE3D DAY OF SEPTEMBER201412TH BHADRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 5295 of 2014 (J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAJINI JAYADEV, AGED56YEARS, W/O.RAGHAVAN JAYADEV, PARACKATTU HOUSE, PALLIKKAL P.O, BHARANIKKAVU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 563. BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR, SMT.RAJESWARI KRISHNAN, SRI.V.B.NARAYANAN, SRI.C.SIVADAS. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.2. THE BHARANIKKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT (SPECIAL GRADE), PALLIKKAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 563, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.3. THE SECRETARY, BHARANIKKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT (SPECIAL GRADE), PALLIKKAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 563.4. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.5. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, JALA VIJNANA B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Canada Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-25-2014
The Court ” I. Introduction [1] The Senate is one of Canadas foundational political institutions. It lies at the heart of the agreements that gave birth to the Canadian federation. Yet from its first sittings, voices have called for reform of the Senate and even, on occasion, for its outright abolition. [2] The Government of Canada now asks this Court, under s. 53 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, to answer essentially four questions: (1) Can Parliament unilaterally implement a framework for consultative elections for appointments to the Senate? (2) Can Parliament unilaterally set fixed terms for Senators? (3) Can Parliament unilaterally remove from the Constitution Act, 1867 the requirement that Senators must own land worth $4,000 in the province for which they are appointed and have a net worth of at least $4,000? and (4) What degree of provincial consent is required to abolish the Senate? [3] We conclude that Parliament cannot unilaterally achieve most of the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: August 12, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: August 26, 2014 + DEATH SENTENCE REF. 1/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with Insp. Sandeep Gupta, Ranjeet Dhaka, SHO Bir Singh and ASI Nihal Singh, PS Chhawla versus RAVI KUMAR & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.A.J.Bhambhani, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate/Amicus Curiae and Ms.Bhavita Modi, Advocate for Ravi Ms.Saahila Lamba, Amicus Curiae for Vinod @ Chottu Mr.Vikas Padora, Advocate with Mr.Chaman Lal, Advocate for Rahul CRL.A. 563/2014 RAHUL Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Vikas Padora, Advocate with Mr.Chaman Lal, Advocate versus STATE OF DELHI Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with Insp. Sandeep Gupta, Ranjeet Dhaka, SHO Bir Singh and ASI Nihal Singh, PS Chhawla CRL.A. 726/2014 RAVI Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.A.J.Bhambhani, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate/Amicus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: August 12, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: August 26, 2014 + DEATH SENTENCE REF. 1/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with Insp. Sandeep Gupta, Ranjeet Dhaka, SHO Bir Singh and ASI Nihal Singh, PS Chhawla versus RAVI KUMAR & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.A.J.Bhambhani, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate/Amicus Curiae and Ms.Bhavita Modi, Advocate for Ravi Ms.Saahila Lamba, Amicus Curiae for Vinod @ Chottu Mr.Vikas Padora, Advocate with Mr.Chaman Lal, Advocate for Rahul CRL.A. 563/2014 RAHUL Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Vikas Padora, Advocate with Mr.Chaman Lal, Advocate versus STATE OF DELHI Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with Insp. Sandeep Gupta, Ranjeet Dhaka, SHO Bir Singh and ASI Nihal Singh, PS Chhawla CRL.A. 726/2014 RAVI Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.A.J.Bhambhani, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate/Amicus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: August 12, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: August 26, 2014 + DEATH SENTENCE REF. 1/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with Insp. Sandeep Gupta, Ranjeet Dhaka, SHO Bir Singh and ASI Nihal Singh, PS Chhawla versus RAVI KUMAR & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.A.J.Bhambhani, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate/Amicus Curiae and Ms.Bhavita Modi, Advocate for Ravi Ms.Saahila Lamba, Amicus Curiae for Vinod @ Chottu Mr.Vikas Padora, Advocate with Mr.Chaman Lal, Advocate for Rahul CRL.A. 563/2014 RAHUL Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Vikas Padora, Advocate with Mr.Chaman Lal, Advocate versus STATE OF DELHI Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with Insp. Sandeep Gupta, Ranjeet Dhaka, SHO Bir Singh and ASI Nihal Singh, PS Chhawla CRL.A. 726/2014 RAVI Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.A.J.Bhambhani, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate/Amicus...
Tag this Judgment!