Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-25-2008
Medelln v. Texas - 06-984 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 MEDELLIN V. TEXAS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MEDELLIN v . TEXAS certiorari to the court of criminal appeals of texas No. 06984.Argued October 10, 2007Decided March 25, 2008 In the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals ( Mex. v. U. S. ), 2004 I.C.J. 12 ( Avena ), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the United States had violated Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Vienna Convention or Convention) by failing to inform 51 named Mexican nationals, including petitioner Medelln, of their Vienna Convention rights. The ICJ found that those named individuals were entitled to review and reconsideration of their U. S. state-court convictions and sentences regardless of their failure to comply with generally applicable state rules governing challenges to criminal convictions. In Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon , 548 U. S. 331issued after Avena but involving...
Tag this Judgment!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 : Mar-19-2008
Reported in : 148(2008)DLT598; LC2008(2)35; 2008(37)PTC71(Del)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. This order disposes of is 642/2008, an application seeking ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendant from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling and exporting the drug Erlotinib, for which the plaintiff holds a patent. Emergent notice was issued, and the parties filed their pleadings as well as documents in support of their contentions, in the suit and the interlocutory proceedings. The application was heard finally for disposal.I The suit1. The Plaintiffs in this suit seek permanent injunction restraining infringement of their patent rights in the drug Erlotinib, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up of the infringing goods.2. The first Plaintiff is a company organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland and has its principal office at Grenzacherstrasse, 124 CH 4070, Basel Switzerland. The second Plaintiff is a company organized and incorporated under the laws of the United States with its registered office at 41, Pinelawn Road, Melville,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-19-2008
Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2444
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Since a common point is involved in all these writ petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. Whether a married woman, who belonged to a State other than the State of Rajasthan prior to her marriage and who was getting the benefit of reservation in that State, is entitled to get the benefit of reservation under the Mahila OBC or other reserved category for the purpose of getting employment in the State of Rajasthan, is the question which is raised in all these writ petitions. In all these writ petitions, the respective petitioners originally belonged to a State other than the State of Rajasthan before their marriage and after marriage, they are residing in the State of Rajasthan as husband of each of the petitioner is staying in Rajasthan. It is not in dispute that the husband of each of the petitioners belongs to OBC or other reserved category and by virtue of their marriage, the petitioners have put up their claim for getting reservation fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Mar-19-2008
(Circuit Bench at Ahmedabad) Honble Shri Syed Obaidur Rahaman, Technical Member: 1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the learned Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad dated 31st July, 2006. The appeal was taken up for hearing in the Circuit Bench Sitting at Ahmedabad on 21st February, 2008. 2. The appellant is one of the most reputed and the largest manufacturers of automobiles and auto parts in the world. Its business operations are spread in as many as 186 countries including 22 countries in Asia. The appellant is engaged in the business of designing and manufacturing automobiles and auto parts. It adopted the mark NISSAN as a prominent part of its corporate identity and as its main trade mark on or about 1933. The mark NISSAN is a part of the corporate identity and trading style of all its subsidiaries and affiliate companies throughout the world. 3. The appellant employs approximately 183,607 employees worldwide and recorded annual sales for the financial year ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on : Mar-18-2008
1. Pursuant to a departmental enquiry, Satish Kumar, a constable in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has been inflicted punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service temporarily for a period of one year entailing reduction in his pay from Rs. 4560/- p.m. to Rs. 4475/- p.m. The enquiry officer after recording the statements of HC Suraj Singh (PW-1), W/HC Adesh Kumari (PW-2), ASI Harpal singh (PW-3), SI Jasvinder Singh (PW-4), Krishan Singh (PW-5), Const. Syambir Singh (PW-6) and Inspr. Ishwar Singh (PW-7), framed the following charge against the applicant: You Const. Satish Kumar No. 2149/SD is hereby charged that while you were posted in P.S. Hauz Khas, on 16/07/99 at about 2.35 A.M. you const. Satish Kumar illegally trespassed in the flat No. F-4 Police Colony, P.S. Hauz Khas of Inspector Ishwar Singh while you were under the influence of liquor and was wearing only underwear. Shri Krishan Singh brother of Inspector Ishwar Singh was sleeping in the room who awakened and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-17-2008
Reported in : (2008)14VST439(Mad)
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of Mr. C. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. N. Inbarajan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Haja Naziruddin, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) representing the respondents and have perused the records.2. M/s Chitrahar Traders, the petitioners in W.P. No. 15072 of 2007, seek to set aside the order dated 16.4.2007 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes wherein and by which, they were informed that their purchase of Plant and Machineries of Briquetting and Carbonisation [for short, 'B&C;] from M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited [for short, 'NLC'] in an auction sale on 'as-is-where- is basis' and 'no complaint basis' was taxable at 12% under entry 20 of Part - D of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Act, 1959 [for short, 'TNGST Act'] 1959 together with a Surcharge at 5% on Tax and for a direction to the Commercial Tax Officer to restore the sales tax recovered over and above 4% pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-14-2008
Reported in : 2008(102)DRJ165
A.K. Sikri, J1. The petitioner is agitated about his non promotion to the rank of Rear Admiral. The Promotion Board, which held its meeting on 23.8.2006, did not recommend him for promotion to the said rank. Instead his junior (respondent No. 5) succeeded in getting the recommendation of the Promotion Board. 2. The petitioner feels that he was overlooked for promotion because of some adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report written by the then Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief (respondent No. 4 herein) on 1.3.2005 as well as on 6.1.2006. The petitioner had even submitted his statutory petition to the Chief of Naval Staff (respondent No. 2 herein) on 24.3.2006 for expunction of these remarks which was allowed on 22.8.2006 but relief sought for was denied to him. As a consequence, when the Promotion Board met on 23.8.2006, influenced by the said adverse remarks, the petitioner was ignored for promotion. In these circumstances, the petitioner submitted appeal to Central Govt. for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-14-2008
Reported in : 2008CriLJ2471
ORDERM.M.S. Bedi, J.1. This order will dispose of an application under Section 389, Cr. P.C. for suspension of judgment of conviction dated December 11, 2003 of Special Judge, Faridabad in case FIR No. 249, dated May 1, 2002 under Sections 384, 342, 120B, IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (sic) Police Station Hodal, District Faridabad.2. The appellant has been convicted by the trial Court i.e. Special Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment dated December 11, 2003. The statutory first appeal against the conviction order is pending in this Court as admitted. The sentence of imprisonment stands already suspended by granting him the concession of bail vide order dated January 6, 2004.3. The appellant-applicant referring to the merits of the cases submits that the appellant has been acquitted under Sections 342 and 120B, IPC raising a doubt regarding the stiltedly of prosecution version, the complainant Prabhu Dayal, P.W. 6 and Dr. Jagdish P.W. 7 has not supported the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-14-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)CTC555; (2008)4MLJ22
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. These Writ Petitions have been filed by Balamani and Saraswathi respectively, challenging the proceedings of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Coimbatore, dated 10.04.2007.2. Since the issued involved in both the writ petitions is common, they are being disposed of by this common order.3. Petitioners case in both the petitions is as follows:a. They own agricultural punja lands to an extent of 1.33.5 acres comprised in S. No. 308/1 of K. Ayyampalayam, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District and they do not own any other agricultural land other than the said lands. Both of them purchased the lands in the same survey number out of the total extent of 2.67 acres in the year1996. To eke out their livelihood, they commenced construction of a poultry shed in their lands. Their husbands are retired employes of a mill and they have no independent income and their families are depending upon the aforesaid agricultural land to lead a peaceful life. The length of...
Tag this Judgment!