Court : Delhi
Reported in : [2000]102CompCas203(Delhi); 74(1998)DLT715; ILR1999Delhi41
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This is an application whereby the plaintiffs seek to restrain the defendants by means of a temporary injunction from using the trade mark and trade name BAKER or any other trade mark or trade name deceptively similar thereto as their corporate name or as a part thereof. The facts necessary for the disposal of the application are as under: The first plaintiff Baker Hughes Limited (formerly known as Baker International Limited) is a company organized under the laws of United Kingdom. The principal place of business is located in Warwick Street, London. The second plaintiff Baker Hughes Incorporated is a company organized under the laws of Delaware, United States of America. Its principal place of business is located at Housten, Texas (hereinafter, for short, the group of 'Baker' or 'Baker Hughes' companies collectively shall be referred to as 'Baker' or 'Baker Hughes'). The second plaintiff is a parent company of the first plaintiff and is stated to own the trade ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.20982 OF2017INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ...APPELLANT (S) SHAILENDRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.& ORS. VERSUS WITH ...RESPONDENT (S) SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.10742 OF2008YOGESH KUMAR & ORS. ...PETITIONER (S) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. ...RESPONDENT (S) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.20920 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)Nos.26574-26575 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.28993 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30198 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30192 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30142 OF20151 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30128 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30203 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL No.4835 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.25289 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)CC No.9842 OF2016SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.22356 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.31678 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL NO.4836 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.22527 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.4705 OF2016SPECI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2023 INSC920IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.1011 of 2022 Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. Petitioners Versus Union of India Respondent With Writ Petition (Civil) No.93 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.5 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.8 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.9 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.11 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.12 of 2023 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.1020 of 2022 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.1105 of 2022 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.1141 of 2022 1 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.1142 of 2022 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.1150 of 2022 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.159 of 2023 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.129 of 2023 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.260 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.6 of 2023 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.319 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.7 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.10 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.13 of 2023 And with Writ Petition (Civil) No.478 of 2023 2 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL/CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10355 OF2018P. MOHANRAJ & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S. SHAH BROTHERS ISPAT PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._239___ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO._1955__ OF2021 (Diary No.32585/2019) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.___240________ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.10587 OF2019 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.__241______ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.10857 OF2019 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.__242_______ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.10550 OF2019 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.__243_______ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.10858 OF2019 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.___244______ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.10860 OF2019 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.____245_____ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.10861 OF2019 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.246___ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.10446 OF2019 CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos._247-248_ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.76 OF2016NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE WITH Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.572 OF2016WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.88 OF2018WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.100 OF2018WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.101 OF2018WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.121 OF2018JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, CJI (for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) C O N T E N T S S. No(s). Heading Page No(s) A. B. Introduction 3-11 The Reference 11-15 2 Submissions on behalf of the petitioners 15-30 Submissions on behalf of the respondents and other intervenors.. 31-44 Decisions in Naz Foundation and Suresh Koushal.... Other judicial pronouncements on Section 377 IPC ... The Constitution an organic charter of progressive rights Transformative constitutionalism and the rights of LGBT community. 45-48 48-57 57-64 65-74 Constitutional morality and Section 377 IPC. 74-81 P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT
Reported in : (2006)5SOT805(Bang.)
The ITA Nos. 881 and 882/Bang./ 2003 have been filed by the revenue and ITA Nos. 895 and 896/Bang./2003 have been filed by the appellant. Since both the appeals arise from the common orders passed by the CIT(A)-V, Bangalore, for assessment year 1998-99 and for assessment year 1999-2000, dated 21-3-2003, all these appeals have been heard together.During the course of hearing of the appeal, the appellant filed paper books for assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The appellant-company also filed additional grounds and other computations and calculation statements to buttress its contentions in the appeal.Firstly, we shall deal with the appeals filed by the appellant-company in ITA Nos. 895 and 896/Bangd/2003 for assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000.Before we proceed with the issues, preliminary objections were raised by the counsel for the Department, Sri E.R. Indrakumar, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: In relation to the aforesaid appeal, the appellant has filed the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991CriLJ2766
ORDER1. These two Criminal Writ Petitions filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be disposed of through a common judgment. The petitions are substantially between the same parties and the points of law and the facts that are involved are also common. The petitions raiseissues of considerable importance and of far-reaching consequence. I am, therefore, outlining the brief heads that fall for determination in these petitions which are as follows:-- A) What are the rights that have vested in the Custodian under the Textile undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983 after takeover, and whether the property of the Company, namely, the proprietorship of the existing Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 can in law be said to have been transmitted to the Custodian as a consequence of such take-over? B) Whether the Custodian, after such takeover, can be categorised only as the permitted user, or whether the proprietorshi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)64TTJ(Mumbai)357
ORDERBY THE BENCH:This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1993-94 is directed against the order of the CIT(A) upholding certain additions and disallowances.2. The. assessee is one of the biggest Indian companies in which public is interested' It is highly diversified and largest 'core industries' in India. It produces viscose, staple fibre, rayon, pulp, caustic soda, cement, software, sponge iron, textiles, heavy engineering machinery and chemicals. It employs over 25,000 persons and its plants are located at about 10 places in India.3. In the memo of appeal, several grounds are raised, but during the course of hearing, the first objection taken by the learned counsel for the assessee related to disallowance of part of deduction claimed under s. 80M of the IT Act, 1961 out of dividend income. The assessee during the relevant period received dividends from Indian companies and returns from UTI amounting to Rs. 28,64 crores and distributed dividend approximately Rs. 25. 11 crores. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1993-94 is directed against the order of the CIT(A) upholding certain additions and disallowances.2. The assessee is one of the biggest Indian companies in which public is interested. It is highly diversified and largest "core industries" in India. It produces viscose, staple fibre, rayon, pulp, caustic soda, cement, software, sponge iron, textiles, heavy engineering machinery and chemicals. It employs over 25,000 persons and its plants are located at about 10 places in India.3. In the memo of appeal, several grounds are raised, but during the course of hearing, the first objection taken by the learned counsel for the assessee related to disallowance of part of deduction claimed under s. 80M of the IT Act, 1961 out of dividend income. The assessee during the relevant period received dividends from Indian companies and returns from UTI amounting to Rs. 28.64 crores and distributed dividend approximately Rs. 25.11 crores. In its return of...
Tag this Judgment!