Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Sixty-Seven Packages of Dry Goods - 58 U.S. 85 (1854) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Sixty-Seven Packages of Dry Goods, 58 U.S. 17 How. 85 85 (1854) United States v. Sixty-Seven Packages of Dry Goods 58 U.S. (17 How.) 85 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus The 66th section of the Act of 1799, 1 Stat. 677, ch. 22, which declares that "If any goods, wares, or merchandise, of which entry shall have been made in the office of a collector, shall not be invoiced according to the actual cost thereof, at the place of exportation, with design to evade the duties thereupon or any part thereof, all such goods &c.;, or the value thereof, to be recovered of the person making Page 58 U. S. 86 the entry, shall be forfeited," has not been repealed by any provision in the act of 1842, or in any of the duty acts, but still exists in full force and effect. A libel of information was filed in the district court by the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
.* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on : February 19, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: May 15, 2013 I.A. No.11874/2012 in CS(OS) 1446/2011 MICOLUBE INDIA LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through : Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Vikas Khera & Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advs. Versus RAKESH KUMAR Trading As SAURABH INDUSTRIES & ORS. ..... Defendants Through : Mr. N.K. Anand, Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Saif Khan, Mr. Monish Biala and Mr. Nischal Anand, Advs. Mr. Sudhir Chandra Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Jaspreet Sareen & Mr. Angad Varma, Advs. for the Interveners. AND CS(OS) 384/2008 & I.A. No.9537/2011, I.A. No.13404/2012 MOHAN LAL Through : ..... Plaintiff Mr. Ashok Goel & Mr. Ranjev Kumar, Advs. Versus SONA PAINT & HARDWARES ..... Defendants Through : Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Mr. Rahul Vidhani & Mr. Arun Jain, Advs. Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) CS(OS) No.1446/2011 & CS(OS) No. 384/2008 Page No.1 of 94 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH HON'BLE ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
B.C. Basak, C.J. 1. These series of Miscellaneous Appeals involve a common question of law relating to the interpretation of some of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1939 Act'), the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 Act) and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1897 Act'). 2. The relevant provisions of the 1939 Act relating to appeals are as follows : Section 110D. 'Appeals -- (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court. Provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in appeal is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1250; 2000(2)ALT19(SC); JT2000(2)SC453; (2000)IIMLJ112(SC); 2000(2)SCALE117; (2000)3SCC548; [2000]1SCR1031
ORDER1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment dated 15-11-88 of the High Court of Madras in LPA No. 4/1983. The appellants in the LPA before the High Court were Sri. Y. R. Natarajan & Sri D. Srinivasan. The 1st respondent in the LPA was the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, the 2nd respondent, one E. Venkatasubbaiah and the 3rd respondent D. Adiseshayya. The 2nd and 3rd respondents were shown in the LPA as persons who died, and no legal representatives were brought on record. It also appears that the 2nd appellant D. Srinivasan was brought on record during the pendency of the first appeal before the learned Single Judge, In C.M.P. No. 4112/1978 on 20-7-1979. The first appeal A.S. No. 379/78 was filed by the Commissioner of Endowments, who was the defendant in the suit, against E. Venkatasubbaih and D. Adiseshayya and Y. R. Natarajan. Learned single Judge allowed the appeal of the Commissioner and the respondents in the 1st appeal filed the LPA as mentioned ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1984Mad122; (1984)1MLJ324
ORDER1. The defendant in 0. S. No. 207 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition which is directed against the finding recorded by the Court below on the preliminary issue regarding limitation. That suit was laid by the respondent herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,860 with subsequent interest on the basis of a simple mortgage for Rs. 5000 executed by the petitioner on 21-5-1969 agreeing to repay the principal amount with interest at 12 per cent per annum.. The suit was instituted on 28-6-1982. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, she raised a plea that the suit is barred by limitation and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.. On that plea so raised by the petitioner. an issue was framed regarding the bar of limitation and that issue was tried by the Court below as a preliminary issue. The Court below took the view that as the provisions of French Code Civil would cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR139; 2003(6)BomCR65; 2003(4)MhLj264; 2003(27)PTC538(Bom); [2003]45SCL362(Bom)
S.A. Bobde, J. 1. This is a Plaintiffs Motion for an injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs registered design of a marker pen or a highlighter sold by the plaintiffs under the trade mark 'TEXTLINER'. The plaintiffs also claim an injunction restraining the defendants from passing-off their highlighter or marker pen under the trade mark 'TEXTLINER' by use of the impugned trade mark 'TEXTLINER' and by adopting the almost identical configuration, shape, design, colour scheme and get-up for their product.2. The plaintiffs are proprietors of registered design No. 174429 dated 1.8.1997. This registration is under the Designs Act, 1911. It was issued on 12.1.1998. The Certificate of Registration contains a pictorial representation of the plaintiffs highlighter and states as follows:'The novelty resides in the shape and configuration of the line marker in particular in the cap portion C and the ornamental surface pattern P. as illustrated.'There is an ornamental su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1966Ker46
ORDERP. Govindan Nair, J. 1. The petitioners in these writ applications, challenge the constitutional validity of the Luxury Tax on Tobacco (Validation) Act, 1964, (Act 9 of 1904). Actually, this is a later development in almost all of these writ applications. At the time they were filed, Act 9 of 1964 referred to above was not in the statute book. The petitions originally contained only the prayer for a direction to refund licence fees collected from the petitioners for granting the various classes of licences as envisaged by the two enactments; the Travancore Tobacco Act (1 of 1087) and the Cochin Tobacco Act (VII of 1084) and the Rules framed thereunder. This collection itself was once challenged in certain writ applications moved before this Court. The point then taken was that by virtue of Section 13(2) of the Finance Acl 1950 (Act 25 of 1950), and the extension of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 to the Travancore-Cochin State from 1950, the two enactments, the Travancorc To...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1968Guj124; (1970)0GLR226
Miabhoy, C.J. (1) These two petitions raise common questions of law and some common questions of fact. Each of the petitions has a common petitioner and a set of common respondents. Therefore, both the petitions were heard together and a common argument was addressed by learned counsel on both sides. With their consent, we are writing this common judgment which would dispose of both the petitions. (2) The two petitions challenge the validity of a house tax imposed by the Broach Borough Municipality and embody prayers for issuance of a writ of mandamus, a direction or an order for restraining respondents, their agents and servants from enforcing the tax, and the provisions of law under which the tax is sough to be levied from petitioner.(3) The facts which are required to be stated to dispose of the two petitions are as follows: In both the petitions the common petitioner is Prathvi Cotton Mills Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913 (hereinafter called pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8731 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.19617 of 2015) SHAILESH DHAIRYAWAN APPELLANT VERSUS MOHAN BALKRISHNA LULLA ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. Leave granted.2. The respondent had filed a suit in the Bombay High Court, being Suit No.1927 of 2007, against the appellant and some others seeking a declaration that a development agreement dated 27.12.2004 together with a Power of Attorney of even date had stood terminated, and for certain other reliefs.3. On 3.10.2008, the parties to the suit entered into consent terms largely settling the disputes between them. However, with regard to two specific differences, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 agreed to refer the said differences to the arbitration of a retired Supreme Court Judge as follows:- 8). The Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 agree to and hereby do refer to Arbitration of Mrs. Justice Sujata Manohar (Retd.) the dispute as to (i) t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Allen - 163 U.S. 499 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Allen, 163 U.S. 499 (1896) United States v. Allen No. 337 Submitted May 8, 1896 Decided May 25, 1896 163 U.S. 499 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The right to a drawback on bituminous coal, imported into the United States and consumed as fuel on a steam vessel engaged in the coasting trade of the United States, which existed before the passage of the Tariff Act of October 1, 1890, c. 1244, 26 Stat. 567, was taken away by the passage of that bill. The case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. The defendant in error brought his action against the United States in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California to recover the amounts of certain alleged drawbacks of duty on importations of bituminous coal which, in February, 1891, were supplied as fuel to the steamer Humboldt, a...
Tag this Judgment!