Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-26-2002
Reported in : 2003(26)PTC590(Del)
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. By way of present suit, the plaintiff prays for permanent injunction in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants restraining them from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale directly or indirectly dealing in Blankets, Shawls, Lohis and other woollen piece made goods under the trade mark KASHGARI, trade mark Nos. 70, 100, 170, 111, Kailashgari, Vaishali, Alaknanda and Neelgiri and device of a Lamb as well as the mark KASHGIRI as part of their trading style and from any other mark or device which is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's trade mark and device.2. The plaintiff is a Government company dealing in manufacturing of woollen goods i.e. Kashgari Lohies, Shawls, Lohies, Blankets, Suiting etc. The plaintiff claims to be the user of marks being No. 70 Lohis, No. 100 Lohis, No. 170 Lohis, No. 111 Lohis, Kailashgiri (No. 3542), Alaknanda Lohis, Neelgiri Lohis and Vishali Lohis since 19.11.1974 to 25.5.1985. The plaintiff is the registered proprie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-26-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)WLC3; 2003(3)WLN339
F.C. Bansal, J.1. The appellant Prem Singh was indicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota in Session Case No. 36/95 for having committed murder of Deepak. He has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302, IPC vide its judgment dated April 6, 1998 to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. Against this judgment of conviction and sentence the present action for filing the appeal has been resorted to by the appellant.2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 11.6.1995 at 11:05 P.M., P.W. 14 Rajendra Singh Rathore, SHO, P.S. Kunhadi, Kota City recorded 'Parcha Bayan' Ex. P. 1 of Smt. Rekha (P.W. 1) W/o Bheru Lal, by caste-Dhobi, R/o Sakatpura, (Kota City) at her house, wherein she stated that today after around 7:30 P.M., she and her nephew Pappu @ Deepak were ironing clothes. At that time Hansraj and Satya Narain quarrelled each other and Sattu chased Hansraj when ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Decided on : Aug-23-2002
Reported in : (2003)(160)ELT1022Tri(Kol.)kata
1. The issue involved in all the four appeals is identical and hence all of them are being disposed of by a common order.2. Vide the impugned orders of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, has demanded differential duty on the consignment of candles imported by the appellants from Nepal. The said candles were cleared by the appellant on payment of additional duty of customs equivalent to central excise duty @ 4% ad valorem on the CIF value declared in the bills of entries. The candles, classifiable under tariff sub-heading No. 3406.10, when manufactured in India, carry the central excise duty @ 16% ad valorem. However, in terms of Notification No. 85/98-Cus., dated 5-11-98, the imported goods carry concessional rate of additional duty of customs, subject to the conditions stipulated in proviso (2) of the said notification. Further in terms of Notification No.3/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001, candles manufactured in India carry concessional rate of duty at 4% ad valorem provided no Cenvat is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-20-2002
Reported in : 2003CriLJ205
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. These two criminal appeals, being Criminal Appeal No. 829 of 1996 (filed on behalf of Bansh Bahadur Singh and Jat Pratap Singh alias Ram Pratap Singh) and Criminal Appeal No. 776 of 1996 (filed on behalf of Narendra Singh alias Natey Singh) arise from the judgment and order dated 23-4-1996 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. These three appellants were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. for committing murder of Vinod Singh and Pramod Singh, They were, however, acquitted of the charges under Section 307, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C, and Sections 504/506, I.P.C. for making an attempt on the life of complainant Ram Kesar Singh. The learned Sessions Judge had also acquitted them for the murder of Smt. Usha Devi wife of Ram Kesar Singh, the first murder in the chain. Since the appeals arise from a common judgment we have heard them together and decide them by this common judgment. It may be noteworthy that no Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-19-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)MPHT397
Ajit Singh, J. 1. Appellant Kishan, the sole accused person in this case, has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life by IInd Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, vide impugned judgment dated 23-2-89 for causing the murder of Patiram, the deceased in the case. He has also been convicted under Section307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for attempting to commit the murder of Sukhchand (P.W. 4). Both the sentences are to run concurrently. Appellant has been found guilty of causing fatal injuries on the person of deceased Patiram and causing grievous injuries to Sukhchand (P.W. 4) by means of a 'lathi' at about 9.00 a.m. on 21-4-87 at Dewardha Nala. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :-- The appellant used to sell illicit liquor from his house. On 21-4-87 Sukhchand (P.W. 4) and Patiram, while returning after attending...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-16-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC3018; (SCSuppl)2002(4)CHN202; 2002CriLJ3939; 2002(4)Crimes5(SC); JT2002(6)SC144; 2002(5)SCALE608; (2002)7SCC11; [2002]SUPP1SCR556
Brijesh Kumar, J. 1. Maha Singh and the appellant Hardeep, father and son respectively have been prosecuted for murder of one Rajinder Singh. The Sessions Court on trial of the case acquitted Maha Singh but convicted the present appellant Hardeep under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default whereof further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.2. Aggrieved by the said order, Hardeep filed an appeal to the High Court against his conviction and sentence and the State of Punjab filed an appeal against the acquittal of Maha Singh as well as against acquittal of Hardeep under Section 302 IPC in place whereof he had been convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC as indicated earlier. A revision was also preferred by Baljeet Singh against the said order passed by the Sessions Court. The High Court by order dated September 20, 2000 allowed the appeal of the State and convicted the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-16-2002
Reported in : AIR2003Delhi211; (2003)134PLR1
Usha Mehra, J.1. Appellant/plaintiff submitted her tender for the supply of 5000 street light brackets on 4th of June, 1965 to the respondent. The said tender was accepted and the supply order was placed on her on 8th June, 1965. According to the plaintiff, the said supply order contained incomplete information. The details were missing with regard to type of hold to be provided in the refectories. That the complete details were supplied to her only on 9th August, 1965, hence the delay in supply. Moreover for lack of details and delay in furnishing the details she suffered losses. She, thereforee, made claim for the balance payment, damages, interest and refund of the earnest money as well as the price of the goods supplied in excess, total claim amounting to Rs. 14,000/-.2. That the suit of the appellant was contested by the respondent inter alia, on the grounds that complete information was furnished in the supply order dated 8th June, 1965. Moreover as and when any information was s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-14-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC2994; 2002CriLJ3915; 2002(3)Crimes218(SC); JT2002(6)SC106; 2002(5)SCALE605; (2002)6SCC700; [2002]SUPP1SCR550
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras dated 21st September, 2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 1990 filed by the appellants against the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge dated 3rd August, 1990 whereby appellants 1 and 2 were found guilty of the offences under Sections 341, 302/109 IPC and appellant No. 3 was found guilty of the offence under Section 341 and 302 IPC. The appellants have been sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment under Section 341 IPC and life imprisonment under Section 302/109 and 302 IPC. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court.2. Special leave was granted limited to the question as to whether the offence proved falls under Section 304 IPC and whether the conviction and sentence under Section 302, 302/109 IPC calls for modification.3. Appellant No. 1, Munuswamy is the father of appellants 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-13-2002
Reported in : JT2002(6)SC310
ORDER1. The appellant along with his lady friend, Jyoti was charged under Sections 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for having committed the murder of one Ramkaran Mishra and also for inflicting injuries on one Narendra Kumar, PW2 on 26.6.1995 between 8.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. at Indore. Learned additional sessions judge, Indore found the said Jyoti not guilty of the offence alleged against her hence acquitted her, while the appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC hence sentenced himto undergo imprisonment for life for having committed the murder of said Ramkaran Mishra. He also found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for having caused injuries with the intention to cause death of Narendra Kumar, PW2.2. The appellant's appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh having failed he is before us in this appeal by leave. However, it should be noticed that on 18.9.2001 leave was grante...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-08-2002
Reported in : 100(2002)DLT78
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. These two Habeas Corpus petitions have been filed with almost identical reliefs. thereforee, we deem it appropriate to dispose of both these petitions by this common judgment.2. Criminal Writ 746/02 has been moved on behalf of four persons, namely, Partha Chhetri, Moti Prasad, Maheshwar Dahal and Aditi. According to the petitioner they are being held by the Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, presumably, under the powers conferred by the Foreigners Act. It is incorporated in the petition filed on 12.7.2002 that the morning newspapers published that they have been served with 'Quit India' notices. It is also mentioned in the petition that to the best of the petitioner's knowledge Partha Chhetri is an Indian citizen hailing from Siliguri and there are no legal or other proceedings against him in Nepal.3. In the petition it is prayed that a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued for quashing the 'Quit India' notices. It is also prayed that the writ o...
Tag this Judgment!