Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-20-2008
Reported in : 149(2008)DLT338; 2008(103)DRJ596; 2008(37)PTC227(Del)
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants claiming that the defendants were infringing trade mark and registered design of the plaintiff and were passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff. Defendants also claimed damages and rendition of accounts. The above application being is No. 1881/07 is made by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.2. The brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this application are that plaintiff claimed that it was marketing 'Dabur Amla Hair Oil' in bottles having a distinctive design having semi circular shoulder with curvaceous back and front panel converging taperly into each other. The shape and configuration of plaintiff's bottle was unique, novel and original and was registered as design No. 17324 under the Designs Act and was valid up to 24th February, 2011. The green cap put over the bottle was also unique and this was registered under Designs Act as design No. 171486 valid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-01-2008
Reported in : 2008(38)PTC308(Del)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This order will dispose off is No. 7326 of 2007, by which the plaintiff seeks an ad-interim order to restrain the defendants from passing off and infringing the plaintiff's copyright, by using the identification numbers in respect of homeopathic medicines that are claimed to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' marks.2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are as follows. The first Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of Federal Republic of Germany, having its office at Berliner Ring 32, D-64625, Bensheim, Germany. It is manufactures and markets homoeopathic medicines for the past sixty years. The plaintiff's medicines are sold in forty countries across the globe; they have been sold in India since 1980. The second Plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the distribution and marketing of the first Plaintiff's homeopathic formulations in India.3. The Plaintiffs claim to have been manufacturing Hom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-29-2008
Reported in : 153(2008)DLT92
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the two appellants, who are real brothers, against the judgment dated 21.11.2001 and order dated 22.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Session Case No. 90/2000 whereby they were convicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' in brief) and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to a fine of Rs.5000/- each, with a default stipulation, for the murder of one Kapil and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.5000/-each, with a default stipulation, for the attempted murder of his mother. 2. The incident leading to the prosecution of the two appellants(hereinafter to be referred to as the accused persons) was narrated by PW-2 Santosh Sharma in her first information statement to the police(Ex.PW- 2/A) on 12th December,1998 when the incident had taken place. She had claimed that that day i.e. 12th December, 1998, her sons Kapil(the deceased) and Anuj(PW-5) ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-20-2008
Reported in : 155(2008)DLT693
S. Muralidhar, J.1. Admit. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11th July 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's IA No. 9140 of 2007 being application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') in suit CS (OS) No. 1454 of 2007 filed against the respondent-defendant. The prayer in IA No. 9140 of 2007 was for an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, marketing, advertising or in any manner whatsoever using the trademarks 'SUPER BRIGHT', SUPER BRIGHT EL', 'SUPER BRIGHT EL-C', 'SUPER BRIGHT EL-81', 'SUPER BRIGHT HD ULTRA' and 'SUPER BRIGHT Bleach' or any other trademark which is deceptively similar or confusingly similar to the above trademarks.3. The appellant is in the business of manufacturing and selling various detergent products. The case of the appellant is that it has dev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on : Apr-02-2008
1. The present case provides a classic example how lightly and by complete lack of application of mind, some times, the authorities entrusted with handling/dealing with enquiries against employees act, who may be visited with such punishments that may totally ruin their career.2. Bharat Singh, the applicant herein, faced a regular departmental enquiry on the following charge, which came to be framed by the enquiry officer after recording statements of HC Sunil Kumar (PW-1), Const.Dalip (PW-2), HC Ramanand (PW-3), SI Yad Ram (PW-4), Inspr. Ombir Singh (PW-5), Inspr. Jagdish Pandey (PW-6), and Ramesh Kumar Chauhan (PW-7): I, H.V.S. Rathi, E.O. ACP/DE Cell, Delhi charge you SI Bharat Singh No. D-633 (PIS No. 16970165) that while you were posted at CAW Cell, South Delhi, the investigation of case FIR No. 393/03 under Section 498-A/406/420 IPC P.S. H.N.Din, New Delhi was entrusted to you. During investigation of the said case, L.O.C. of accused Darshan Kumar Sharma was got opened at Immigr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on : Apr-23-2008
1. By this OA, applicant has challenged order dated 18.10.2002 (page 21) whereby applicant was compulsorily retired from service and order dated 30.11.2006 whereby his appeal was rejected. He has also sought directions to the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.2. It is submitted by the applicant that he was appointed as a labourer w.e.f. 11.01.1990. On 01.03.2001 he was served with a show cause notice (page 27) calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him as he has remained absent from duty without prior permission w.e.f. 4.12.2000 till date.3. Applicant replied he was sick due to psychological problems for which he is taking treatment from RML shall resume duty as soon as declared fit (page 28). He joined the duties yet memorandum dated 29.11.2001 was served on him on three charges: That the said Shri Ravi Kumar while functioning as Lab in Yard Group of CVD Delhi Cantt during the period from Dec 2000 to Mar 2001 rema...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Jan-25-2008
1. As there is a difference of opinion, the matter is being referred to the Hon'ble President of the I.T.A.T with a request that the following question may be referred to a Third Member or pass such order as the Hon'bie President may kindiy decide: Whether on me facts and circumstances of the case, the product (photographic apparatus and goods) being manufactured by the assessee did not come under 11th Scheduie of the Act and therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction Under/Section 801/801A of the Act.1. The appeal has been directed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dated 28.11.97 pertaining to assessment year 94-95.In the sole ground, the revenue has challenged the direction of the CIT(A) to allow deduction Under Section 80-1 of the Act despite the fact that the product being manufactured by the assessee came under the XI^th Schedule of the Act.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the production and manufacture of photo co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Jan-31-2008
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)528
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) passed in Appeal No. DEL/CIT-A2/2002-03/161 dt. 7th March, 2003 on as many as 16 grounds.2. Ground Nos. 1 and 17 are general in nature hence no adjudication is required from our side.3. Ground Nos. 2 to 6 relating to various legal issues as stated in the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee were not pressed by the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee before us; accordingly, the same are rejected as not pressed.4. Ground No. 10 relates to confirmation of addition of Rs. 93,546 on account of commission earned by the assessee and ground No. 1 relates to confirmation of addition of Rs. 25,45.575 by the CIT(A) out of the total addition of Rs. 28,28,902 made by the AO as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. Ground No. 12 relates to upholding of the addition of Rs. 9,75,000 by the CIT(A) relating to share application money and ground No. 13 pertains to confirmation of addition of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-06-2008
Reported in : (2008)113ITD655(Delhi)
1. These appeals of the assessee were decided by the Tribunal vide consolidated order dt. 9th March, 2007 reported as Smt. Krishna Verma v. Asstt. CIT (2007) 109 TTJ (Del) (SB) 193Ed. Thereafter, the assessee filed miscellaneous applications bearing Nos. 327 and 264/Del/2007. The said miscellaneous applications were disposed of by the Tribunal vide consolidated order dt. 24th Aug., 2007.2. In the miscellaneous applications filed, the grievance of the assessee was that the Tribunal had decided only one ground of appeal which related to the defect in the notice issued under Section 158BC by giving less than 15 days notice to the assessee to file block return and this Tribunal did not adjudicate upon the other grounds of appeal raised in the above appeals filed by the assessee. Since the Special Bench constituted to decide whole of the appeal and certain other legal grounds involving jurisdictional aspect, which were raised but have not been adjudicated upon, there was a mistake in the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-15-2008
Reported in : 148(2008)DLT60; [2008(117)FLR474]; (2008)IILLJ489Del
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The above captioned appeals raise a common question of law and hence are being decided together.2. Facts relevant to FAO No. 250/1987 are that the first respondent Hotel Corporation of India, intended to set up a five star hotel near the International Airport at Delhi called Centaur Hotel. On 1.2.1981 it awarded the work of constructing the hotel to the second respondent M/s. Tirath Ram Ahuja Pvt. Ltd. The hotel building was stipulated to be completed by December 1983.3. When the work was in progress, a wing consisting of 200 rooms was completed. It be noted that 400 rooms were to be constructed under the original contract. Due to the ensuing Asian Games to be held in the month of November- December 1982, first respondent decided to commence partial operations from the building by putting to use the 200 rooms which were constructed. Appellant learnt that partial operations had commenced from the building. It demanded ESI dues with effect from 1.6.1982. It demand...
Tag this Judgment!