Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-31-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)CHN344,LC2009(1)407,2009(40)PTC437(Cal)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The plaintiff founds this action in passing off on the first defendant allegedly copying the plaintiffs slogan in the second-last frame of the plaintiffs television commercial relating to its Horlicks health food drink powder. The plaintiff says that the slogan being the most prominent feature of its commercial, which is also the theme used in danglers and other promotional material used by the plaintiff, it has come to be so exclusively associated with the plaintiffs product that any form of imitation thereof by any other person would amount to deceit for filching the trade and trading upon the goodwill of the plaintiff and its renowned product.2. There appears to be little doubt that the plaintiffs is a well-known product. The first defendant has not contested either the plaintiffs or its said product's reputation. The plaintiff shows - and there is no reason to disbelieve the plaintiff - that it has expended several tens of crores in its advertisement campaign ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-01-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC3202; IV(2008)BC269(SC); 2008(3)KLT590(SC); (2008)6MLJ1067(SC); (2008)152PLR1; 2008(11)SCALE73; 2008AIRSCW5411; 2008(6)AIRKarR59
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether in a suit for recovery of money on a cheque issued by the defendant but dishonoured, the amount received by the plaintiff-creditor in a criminal proceeding should be adjusted, is the core question involved herein.3. Plaintiff - Respondent filed a suit against the appellants, which was marked as O.S. No. 1844 of 2004, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,09,000/- with interest. In the plaint, it was averred that Shri K. Balasubramanyam (father of the respondent) and Defendant No. 1 (Appellant No. 1 herein) were good friends. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had been carrying on business. They approached the plaintiff through Shri K. Balasubramanyam for financial assistance and obtained a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. 1,00,000/- on 15.03.2001 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 25.03.2001). Two promissory notes were also executed therefor.4. Defendants - Appellants purported to be in discharge of the said debt issued two cheques bearing Nos. 3960 dated 15.03.2003 and 3959 dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-01-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ146
Amar Saran and R.N. Misra, JJ.1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner Amit Chaurasia with the prayer that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding and directing the respondents to register the FIR of the petitioner.2. We have heard Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent State and perused the record.3. It appears from the contents of the writ petition that one Dibyesh Pratap Singh came to the Mobile Repair Shop of the petitioner on 17.7.2008 at about 5 P.M. and abused him over some disputes on the repair of a mobile phone. The petitioner was also beaten by him. In the meantime, Dibyesh's father Devendra Pratap Singh also came there with five or six juniors lawyers and assaulted the petitioner by kicks and fists. He also gave a threat to his life. Whereas the police of Sigra police station registered a case at Crime No. 448 of 2008 under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-01-2008
Reported in : 152(2008)DLT201; 2008(105)DRJ303
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. We are concerned with the rampant manipulation and misuse of the statutory right to appeal by convicts who quite palpably take recourse to filing of appeals with the sole objective of defeating justice by obtaining bail and thereafter escaping out of the reach of law. Jural compulsions dictate that this species of appeals should be consciously dismissed on the ground of occasioning gross abuse of judicial process and an annihilation of the ends of justice. This approach has found favour with the High Courts of Bombay and Patna. It is necessary to distinguish between dismissal of appeals in this set of circumstances, namely, where steps have been taken for securing the presence of the appellant by coercive means, including the issuance of non-bailable warrants or proceedings for declaring the appellant a proclaimed offender by recourse to Part C of Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short) on the one hand, and instances where the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-04-2008
Reported in : 2008(106)DRJ47
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Commissioned Officer on 15.5.1967 in the Executive Branch of the Indian Navy. During his service he specialized in 'Hydrography' some time in Jan. 1969 while posted in the executive branch. He was then assigned his duties in Hydrographic Section of the Executive Branch.2. In 1976 the Navy started an exercise for creating a separate Hydrographic Cadre to retain professionalism in the service. They also sought views of those who were working in this branch and gave them option to come back to the general cadre while retaining the final decision to be taken by the Naval Headquarters vide letter No. NA/1648/76, dated 25.3.1976. The petitioner as well as others requested to come back to the general branch but the said option was refused at that time.3. However, based on the inputs from the naval commands and the apprehensions of vast majority (over 80%) of the hydrographic officers, including the petitioner, the Naval Headquarters afte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-04-2008
Reported in : 2008(5)BomCR25; 2008(131)ECC102; 2008(157)LC102(Bombay); 2008(230)ELT22(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Revenue has preferred this appeal against the common order dated 5th April, 2005 passed by CESTAT in the Appeals and Applications which were filed before it. The Appeals were preferred against the common order in original dated 23rd March, 2005 of the Commissioner of Central Customs (Preventive) in the matter arising out of the show cause notice dated 7th August, 2003. The Appeals preferred were allowed, both as to objection as to jurisdiction as also on other points which are set out in para.7 of the impugned order. It is Revenue which has preferred this Appeal.2. One of the question of law which was urged before the learned CESTAT and which was framed, read as under:Whether the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) was the proper officer having jurisdiction to seize the rig in the EEZ and whether he was competent to issue a show cause notice and adjudicate the same to demand duties on goods imported, assessed and cleared on assessment orders of the proper officer of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-06-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)AWC362
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal is arising out of the judgment and order dated 1.5.2008, passed by the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhansi, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,40,000 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum on account of injuries of the claimant.2. It has been contended before us by the appellant/insurance company that the medical certificate, which has been given by the medical practitioner of the community health centre could not be said to be appropriate medical certificate for the purpose of ascertainment of disability of 45%.3. It is pertinent to mention that normally we consider the validity of the certificate to be issued by the office of the Chief Medical Officer of the district, if there is signature of more than one medical practitioners by following the principle plurality causes genuinity. Learned Counsel has shown us a circular letter dated 26.8.1986 to that extent. After going through the same, we find that the same is not needed for consideration for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-06-2008
Reported in : 2008(133)ECC183; 2008(159)LC183(SC); 2008(229)ELT487(SC)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Respondent company is an undertaking wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is engaged in the manufacture of railway wagons and conveyor systems falling under Heading 8605.50 and 8428.00 respectively of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Upon verification of their accounts, it was noticed on 16th July 1998 that the respondent had entered into a contract, being Contract No. 94/RS/PF&EC;/954/3 dated 1.12.1994, with the Southern Railways for manufacture and supply of 106 wagons of BTPGLN wagons for an amount of Rs. 16,10,90,974/- which was inclusive of cost of steel at Rs. 6,65,833/- per wagon. The cost of each wagon worked out to Rs. 15,29,724/- (6,55,833 + 8,63,891). The Railways supplied free raw material worth Rs. 7 lac per wagon. The respondent paid central excise duty @ 15% ad valorem and cleared 21 wagons to their customer till 16th July 1998. It was also noticed that the respondent has adjusted the value mentioned in the invoices against 50...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-07-2008
Reported in : (2008)IVCALLT5(HC)
..... or union territory in india on the date of advertisement for the examination; (iv) ability to read, write and speak in bengali (not required for recruitment in the case of nepali speaking candidates from hill areas of the district of darjeeling).10. mr. arunava ghosh, appearing as learned counsel for the writ petitioner, first invited attention of the court to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-08-2008
Reported in : 154(2008)DLT346
Manmohan Singh, J.1. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 23rd July 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. No. 2467 and 2468 of 2000 in Suit No. 2480/98 whereby the application of the Defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed and the plaint as such was rejected mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by strict provisions and rigours of Sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the suit is not maintainable under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure.2. In the nutshell, brief facts for deciding the appeal are that on 12th November, 1996, there was a mid air collision of Saudi Arabian Airlines Boeing 747 ( flight SV 763) with Kazakistan Airlines near Charkhi Dadri, Haryana. One Ms. Farah Mumtaz was a passenger on board of Saudi Arabian Airlines. She died as a result of the said collision. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Farah Mumtaz and claim compensation and damage...
Tag this Judgment!