Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)710; 1996(2)ARBLR488(SC); JT1996(7)SC555; 1996(6)SCALE276; (1996)5SCC714; [1996]Supp5SCR369
J.S. Verma, J.1. This appeal by way of special leave is by the defendants against whom a temporary injunction was granted by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in an Original Suit by order dated 31st October, 1994, which has been affirmed on appeal by the Division Bench by its order dated 21.4.1995. The suit is a passing off action brought by the plaintiff-respondents to restrain the defendant appellants from manufacturing selling, advertising or in any way using the trade mark 'WHIRLPOOL' in any other trade mark deceptively or confusingly similar to the trade mark of 'WHIRLPOOL' in respect of their goods. The subject matter of this appeal is the manufacture, sale and advertisement of washing machines by the defendants-appellants using the mark 'WHIRLPOOL' as a part of the name by which they had recently commenced marketing the washing machines manufactured by them. In short, the claim of the plaintiff-respondents is based on prior user of the mark 'WHIRLPOOL' and a trans...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ3543; JT2008(8)SC271; 2008(10)SCALE81; (2008)11SCC20
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 450 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and sentence of five years and seven years rigorous imprisonment respectively and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and 1,000/- respectively with default stipulation as recorded and imposed by the Learned Special Judge Chhattarpur in Special Case No. 33 of 2002. Appellant (hereinafter also referred to as an `accused') was charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376(1) IPC and 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, (in short the `Act').3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial was as follows:On 17.1.2002 at 1735 hours prosecutrix lodged report at police station Khajuraho to that effect that on the said date at 11 O'clock...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ2855; AIR2009SC24; 2008(4)AWC3823(SC); [2008(4)JCR105(SC)]; (2008)152PLR758; 2008(13)SCALE35; 2008AIRSCW6872; 2008(2)TNMAC508(SC)
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Substitution allowed.3. Application for abatement is set aside.4. Leave granted.5. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.5.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court at Chandigarh whereby and where under the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant herein from the judgment and order dated 9.10.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in the said F.A. No. 2627 of 1998 was dismissed.6. One Balwant Singh filed an application claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) by way of compensation for death of his son Virender Singh in an accident which took place on 5.2.1997. The owner of the vehicle contested the said claim. Appellant herein, inter alia, raised a contention before the Tribunal that the driver of the vehicle, namely, Karan Arora was a minor on the date of the accident and was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and thus it was not liable to reimburse the owner of the vehi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ456; AIR2008SC424; 2008(1)ALD30(SC); 2008(1)ALLMR(SC)408; III(2008)CPJ78(SC); 2008(1)CTC152; 2008(1)KLT698(SC); (2008)1MLJ1256(SC); (2008)149PLR257; 2007(13)SCALE329; 2007AIRSCW7179; AIR2008SC424; 2008(1)SCC321; 2008ACJ456;
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Application of Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 17th December, 2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in A.F.A. No. 18 of 2000 setting aside the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 23rd September, 2000 passed in Appeal Suit No.633 of 1993 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode in OS No. 240 of 1990 dated 27th February, 1993.3. Plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants herein. They filed the said suit inter alia for recovery of the amount of insurance on the death of one Chackochan (hereinafter referred to as 'the insured'). The insured took an insurance policy on 21st February, 1987. He died on 6th July, 1987. On his death, the appellants herein claimed the insured amount. On the premise that the insured suppressed material facts, the policy had been repudiated by the respondent on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(1)ALT38(SC); 2009(1)AWC953(SC); [2009(1)JCR65(SC)]; (2009)1MLJ184(SC); 2008(13)SCALE612; 2009(3)SLJ320(SC):2008AIRSCW7630:AIR2009SC514:2009(2)KCCR1233.
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal is filed by the Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and another (appellants herein) against the judgment and the decree passed by the Court of Senior Sub Judge with Enhanced Appellate Powers, Chandigarh on January 30, 1980 in Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1979 and confirmed by the High Court on April 26, 2006 in Second Appeal No. 2473 of 1980 as also an order, dated September 01, 2006 rejecting an application to recall the said order.3. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that Raghu Raj-respondent herein, was appointed by the Executive Engineer, Horticulture Division, Chandigarh as `beldar' on purely temporary basis. Initial appointment was made in 1969 and after sometime, he was discontinued. Again, fresh appointment was given in 1972. It was expressly stated when the respondent was appointed that his services were liable to be terminated at any time without notice or reason. According to the appellant, the services of the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2011(10)SCC665; 2011(8)SCJ898; 2012(1)SCC(Cri)64; AIR2012SCW93; AIR2012SC459
1. Leave granted. 2. Feeling dissatisfied with the enhancement granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the amount of compensation awarded to him by 8th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (for short, `the Tribunal'), the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The appellant, who sustained grievous injuries on the head, right shoulder, back bone and other parts of the body in an accident which occurred on 9.5.1996, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `the Act') for award of compensation of Rs. 4,20,000/- with interest. The claim of the appellant was founded on the following assertions: (i) That the accident occurred when the scooter on which he was travelling along with his friend Sunil was hit by truck No. MKH-7787 near Sikaria Workshop at AB Road, Gwalior. (ii) That the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 1-Munnalal Parihar. (iii) That he was rushed to Madhav Dispensary from where he was sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC349; (1955)57BOMLR10; [1955]1SCR108
Mahajan, J. 1. This appeal which comes by special leave obtained by the appellant Sadhu Singh, is from a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Patiala dated 2-6-1952 by which the sentence of transportation for life passed against him for the murder of one Harbachan Singh was affirmed.2. The facts are, that on 29-10-1949 Harbachan Singh, deceased, went to village Bihla because he intended to borrow a camel from Nand Singh, P. W. 4. P. Ws. Chand Singh and Amar Singh accompanied him to Bihla and the party reached there between 7 and 8 P.M. On arrival at Nand Singh's house it was found that he had gone to the house of Sadhu Singh. Nand Singh's son was asked to go to Sadhu Singh's house and call Nand Singh from there. Nand Singh's son returned with a message from his father inviting the party to Sadhu Singh's house. Accordingly they all went there and found Nand Singh in the midst of a liquor party. The appellant's father Harnam Singh was also there. It is said that on the arriv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1331; (1974)2SCC213; [1974]3SCR678
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The appellant in this appeal, by certificate is the auction purchaser whose sale has been set aside by the High Court in reversal of the decision of the Executing Court which dismissed the application of the judgment debtor (first respondent herein) under Order XXI Rule 90, C. P. C. Although many points were urged and considerable time was taken in the arguments, attention was principally focussed on one issue which we will mainly deal with. Of course, a brief but sufficient reference will also be made to the other points.2. The Maharashtra State Finance Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') plays the role of decree-holder in the present case. It had lent a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the first respondent, which is a drum manufacturing private limited company, in May 1961, on the security by way of mortgage of its land, factory building, plant and machinery situate at Kalwa, District Thana. Respondents 2 and 3 had guaranteed the repayment of the said loan. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC448; 1961CriLJ573; [1961]2SCR610
S.K. Das, J.1. These three writ petitions have been heard together, as they raise common questions of law and fact. They relate, however, to three different enactments made by the Legislatures of three different States - Bihar in writ petition No. 15, Uttar Pradesh in writ petition No. 21, and Madhya Pradesh in writ petitions No. 14. The petitioners in the several petitions have challenged the validity of a number of provisions of the enactments in question and, in some cases, also of the rules made thereunder. The impugned provisions are similar in nature, but are not exactly the same. Therefore, we shall first state in general terms the case of the petitioners and then consider in detail and separately the impugned provisions in each case. But before we do so, it is necessary to refer to some background history of the legislation under consideration in these cases. 2. In the year 1958 this Court had to consider the validity of certain provisions of three Acts : (1) The Bihar Preserva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC271
Mahajan, J. 1. This appeal which comes by special leave obtained by the appellant Sadhu Singh, is from a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Patiala dated 2-6-1952 by which the sentence of transportation for life passed against him for the murder of one Harbachan Singh was affirmed.2. The facts are, that on 29-10-1949 Harbachan Singh, deceased, went to village Bihla because he intended to borrow a camel from Nand Singh, P. W. 4. P. Ws. Chand Singh and Amar Singh accompanied him to Bihla and the party reached there between 7 and 8 P.M. On arrival at Nand Singh's house it was found that he had gone to the house of Sadhu Singh. Nand Singh's son was asked to go to Sadhu Singh's house and call Nand Singh from there. Nand Singh's son returned with a message from his father inviting the party to Sadhu Singh's house. Accordingly they all went there and found Nand Singh in the midst of a liquor party. The appellant's father Harnam Singh was also there. It is said that on the arriv...
Tag this Judgment!