Court : Delhi
Reported in : 151(2008)DLT650; 2008(38)PTC139(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a suit for permanent injunction and damages for disparagement and unfair trade practices. The plaintiff and the defendant are competitors. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the defendant's advertisement on television, which allegedly disparages the plaintiff's soap sold under the trade mark 'DETTOL'. The defendant's advertisement is for promotion of its soap ' LIFEBUOY'.Reliefs sought by the plaintiff:2. The plaintiff has prayed that the defendant be restrained by a permanent injunction from (i) issuing or telecasting the impugned advertisement, or in any other manner disparaging the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff and its product sold under the trade mark DETTOL, in any other advertisements and in all media whatsoever including the electronic media; (2) using the depiction of the plaintiff's soap or any other soap deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's in its advertisement or in any other manner disparaging the goodwill and reputation of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)1MLJ270; 2007(5)CTC392
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 13.8.2003 passed in W.P.No. 10291 of 2003.2. The issue relates to payment of subsistence allowance payable to the appellant for the period of suspension pending disciplinary action.3. The appellant was placed under suspension by the first respondent on 25.1.1999 pending disciplinary action against him. Alleging non payment of subsistence allowance, the appellant preferred PSA No. 2/02 and 3/02 claiming subsistence allowance for two different periods. By order, dated 12.7.2002, the third respondent ordered a sum of Rs. 12122/- in PSA.No. 2/02 and Rs. 53276/- in PSA No. 3/02 to be payable by the first respondent to the appellant. Both the appellant and the first respondent preferred PAA Case No. 5/02-1 and 5/02 before the second respondent. The second respondent also confirmed the order of the third respondent by his order, dated 24.2.2003.4. Aggrieved against the same, the first ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)ILLJ654Cal
1. The basic issue involved in this appeal is whether an order dismissing an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (referred to as the Act) is an 'award' directing 'reinstatement' within the meaning of the phrase under Section 17B of the Act.2. The issue arises out of the dismissal of the respondent No. 3 from service by the appellant. According to the appellant the respondent No. 3 refused to abide by a transfer order and used abusive language against the management. According to the respondent No. 3 the transfer order was issued mala fide. A show- cause notice was issued by the appellant to the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 answered this but did not participate in the inquiry proceedings. On the basis of the enquiry report the order of dismissal was passed by the appellant. According to the appellant immediately thereafter one month's wage was sent to the respondent No. 3 and an application was made under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act before t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)ILLJ704Cal
ORDERNo. 204-IR IR/IOL-37(1)/81 Dated January 18, 1984Whereas an industrial dispute exists between Messrs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Alloy Steels Plant, Durgapur-8 and their workmen represented by Hindustan Steel Employees Union, 36/49, Harshabardhan Road, pur-gapur-4 relating to the undermentioned issue being a letter specified in the Second Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947);And whereas it is expedient that the said dispute should be referred to an Industrial Tribunal constituted under Section 7A of the said Act;Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Governor is pleased hereby to refer the said dispute to the Ninth Industrial Tribunal constituted under Notification No. 4481/GL/G/3A-20/66 dated September 7, 1967, for adjudication:The said Ninth Industrial Tribunal shall meet at such places and on such dates as it may direct;IssuesWhether termination of service of Shri Rabi Sor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1962All328; (1962)ILLJ148All
Oak, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, validity of a Government notification lowering the age of superannuation has been challenged. Ram Autar Pandey is the petitioner. The State of Uttar Pradesh and the District Judge, Mainpuri are the two opposite Parties.2. The petitioner was born on the 4th of May 1906. He joined service in 1929 in Mainpuri judgeship. He is at present occupying the post of Record Keeper in the said judgeship. Under Rule 56of the U. P. Fundamental Rules, it was laid down that the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant is the date on which he attains the age of 55 years. By a Government notification issued on 27-11-1957 (hereafter referred to as 1957 notification) the figure '58' was substituted for the figure 55' in Fundamental Rule 56. According to this notification, the petitioner could remain in service till the completion of 58 years. It was expected that he would not retire from service till May 1964.3. On 25-5-1961, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1930)32BOMLR953
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. These three appeals by the liquidator of the Viramgam Spinning and ., (hereinafter called ' the company') raise important questions under Section 227(2) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, which runs as follows:-(2) In the case of a winding-up by or subject to the supervision of the Court, every disposition of the property (including actionable claims) of the company, and every transfer of shares, or alteration in the status of its members, made after the commencement of the winding-up shall, unless the Court otherwise orders, be void.2. In the present case the winding-up order was made on March 3, 1925, but ' the commencement of the winding-up ' was June 12, 1924, when the Industrial Bank of Western India, Ahmedabad, (hereinafter called ' the Industrial Bank ' who are the respondents in Appeal No. 28 of 1928) presented their petition for the compulsory winding-up of the company. At that date the Industrial Bank were unsecured creditors of the company for ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC753Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No.1404 of 2023 Sukanya Shantha Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Contents I. The Writ Petition .................................................................................................. 4 II. Submissions ........................................................................................................ 4 III. Constitutional Interpretation ................................................................................. 6 IV. The Constitution of Emancipation, Equality, and Dignity ...................................... 9 V. The Contours of Article 14 ................................................................................. 17 VI. Non-Discrimination under Article 15 ............................................................... 23 VII. The Ban on Untouchability in Article 17 ...................................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC562IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE / ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.2317 of 2011 The State of Punjab & Ors. Appellants Versus Davinder Singh & Ors. Respondents With C.A. No.6936 of 2015 With C.A. No.5597 of 2010 With W.P.(C) No.21 of 2023 With C.A. No.5593 of 2010 With S.L.P.(C) No.30766 of 2010 With S.L.P.(C) No.8701 of 2011 With S.L.P.(C) Nos.36500-36501 of 2011 With T.C.(C) No.38 of 2011 1 With T.P.(C) No.464 of 2015 With W.P.(C) No.1477 of 2019 With C.A. No.5586 of 2010 With C.A. No.5598 of 2010 With C.A. Nos. 5595-5596 of 2010 With C.A. No.2324 of 2011 With T.C.(C) No.37 of 2011 With C.A. No.5589 of 2010 With C.A. No.5600 of 2010 With C.A. No.5587 of 2010 With S.L.P.(C) Nos.5454-5459 of 2011 With C.A. No.2318 of 2011 With C.A. No.289 of 2014 And With W.P.(C) No.562 of 2022 2 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI A. Background ................................................................................................ 5 i. Relevant c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - WA No.856 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF JULY, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO.856 OF2022(T-RES) BETWEEN:1. PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE BENGALURU ZONE UNIT, #112, K H ROAD, S P ENCLAVE, ADJ.TO KARNATAKA BANK, BENGALURU 560 027.2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE, C R BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001.3. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001.4. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REP BY SECREATARY NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001.5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX SOUTH DIVISION-6, 2ND FLOOR, TTMC/BMTC BUILDING, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU 560 070. APPELLANTS (BY SRI.AMIT A DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE) - 2 - WA No.856 of 2022 AND: M/S RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENG...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC554IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 4056-4064 of 1999 Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. Appellants Versus M/S Steel Authority of India & Anr Etc. Respondents With Civil Appeal No.7937 of 2019 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.512 of 2018 With Civil Appeal No.7938 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No.7936 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No.6221 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No.5250 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.729 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1029 of 2019 With Special Leave Petition (C) No.16028 of 2021 With Civil Appeal No.4286 of 2023 1 With Civil Appeal No.5682 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No.1295 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No.874 of 2013 With Civil Appeal Nos. 8269-8271 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8268 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8267 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.6135 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8272 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.9458 of 2013 With Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18600 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.4...
Tag this Judgment!