Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
Decided on : Mar-25-2014
On appeal from: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town (Louw, Ndita JJ and Dolamo AJ sitting as court of appeal): 1. The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include those consequent upon the employment of two counsel. 2. The cross-appeal succeeds with costs, such costs to include those consequent upon the employment of two counsel. 3. Paragraph 2 of the order of the court below is amended to read as follows: The orders made by the court a quo are set aside and the following substituted orders are made: 1. The Eighth and Ninth Respondents are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the following amounts: (a) The sum of R12 million. (b) Interest on the sum of R12 million up until 10 February 2010 in the amount of R12 million. (c) Further interest on the capital sum of R12 million at a rate of 3% per month from 10 February 2010 to 24 February 2012. (d) Interest on the total of the amounts set out in paras (a), (b) and (c) above at a rate of 3% per month from 25 February 2012 to date ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-25-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:25. h March, 2014 % + CS(OS) 3137/2012 PFIZER PRODUCTS, INC THROUGH: Mr.Sahil Sethi, Advocate ..Plaintiff VERSUS R.K. SINGH & ANR THROUGH: None ..Defendants CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI G.S. SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, rendition of accounts, delivery up and damages. Summons were issued in the suit on 19.10.2012, 02.01.2013, 25.02.2013 and on 19.07.2013. The plaintiff is aggrieved by use of the mark VIHAGRA by defendants. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the defendants and they were accordingly proceeded ex parte on 15.01.2014.2. The plaintiff has filed affidavit by way of evidence of Mr. Samir Kazi (PW1), which is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A. PW1 has deposed that he holds Power of Attorney from plaintiff in his favour and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1.3. Mr. Samir Kazi, PW1 has deposed tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-24-2014
Criminal Misc. No.M-3246 of 2014 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-3246 of 2014 Date of Decision: 24th March, 2014 Naval ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr.Jangvir Singh Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Chetan Sharma, AAG, Haryana. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner Naval who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 115, 120-B, 307, 323, 324, 452 and 506, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.498, dated 16.12.2013, registered at Police Station, Hodal, District Palwal. Learned counsel contends that the injury attracting the mischief of Section 307, IPC, has not been attributed to the petitioner and concededly, the same was caused by Kuldeep; that before addition of Section 307, IPC, the petitioner was arrested and granted bail by the court below; and that in compliance ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: March 24, 2014 + CRL.A. 316/1998 NARESH GUPTA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate Versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.1. Challenge in the present appeal is the impugned judgment dated and order on sentence dated 30.07.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellant has been held guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment together with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to further undergo RI for a period of six months.2. The case of the prosecution in brief, can be summarized as under:On 24.06.1984 at about 6.55 p.m., SI Ashutosh was handed over a copy of the DD Report...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Mar-24-2014
Katakey, J. 1. This appeal, by the convict, is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 09.02.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) No.1, Kamrup at Guwahati, in Sessions Case No.161(K)/2004, convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1(one) year. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 14.08.2000 at about 12.30 P.M. accused Kanak Boro being armed with deadly weapon, like dagger, entered into the courtyard of the informant, namely, Mukuta Boro (not examined) and assaulted his father Golok Boro resulting in his death on the spot. A G.D. entry was also made based on the information furnished by one Ranjit Boro (who has not been examined). A written F.I.R. was thereafter lodged by Mukuta Boro (not examined) on 14.08.2000 with the Officer-in-Charge of Hajo Police Station, based on which Hajo P.S. Case No.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-24-2014
ORDER SHEET GA NO.5 OF2014WITH CS NO.457 OF2013IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MANGLAM FISCAL SERVICES PVT.LTD.Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 24th March, 2014. Mr.S.N. Mitra, senior advocate, Mr.A.Mukherjee, Mr.S.Banerjee, Ms.S.Sinhaappear. Mr.K.BhattacharyaappeaRs.The Court : Mr.S.N.Mitra, learned senior advocate cited Standard Chartered Bank vs.V.Noble Kumar And Others with Criminal Appeal No.1217 of 2013 Senior Manager, State Bank of India And Another vs.R.Shiva Subramaniyan And Another; reported in [2013].9 SCC620 He relied on paragraph 28, which is inserted below. It can be noticed from the language of the proviso to Section 13[3-A].and the language of section 17 that an appeal under Section 17 is available to the borrower only after losing possession of the secured asset. The employment of the words aggrieved by taken by the secured creditor [emphasis supplied].in Section 17[1].clear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Mar-21-2014
Ms. S. Usha, Vice-Chairman 1. The instant appeal is preferred against the order of the Assistant Controller of Patents dated 12/06/2009 in respect of Patent No.197822 (178/MUM/2004) granted on 21/04/2006 under Section 25(4) of the Patents Act, 1970 pursuant to a post-grant opposition dated 21/04/2007. 2. The facts of the case are “ The 1st respondent filed a Patent application No. 178/MUM/2004 on 16/02/2004. The patent was granted on 21/04/2006 as Patent No. IN 197822. The appellant herein filed a post grant opposition under Section 25(2) of the Act. The appellant also filed expert affidavit of Dr. Nagarsenkar. The 1st respondent filed their reply statement to the statement of opposition. The 1st respondent had not filed their evidence though sought time to file evidence. 3. The 2nd respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the opposition filed by the appellants. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred the above appeal on various grounds. (1) that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-21-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:21. .03..2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.No.5053 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 and W.P.No.6484 of 2014 S.Kirubakar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.5053 of 2014 - Versus - 1.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. 2.The Chairman, Uniform Services Selection Board, P.T.Lee Chengalvaraya Nayakkar Building, No.907, II Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Nethimedu, Salem District 636 002. ... Respondents in W.P.No.5053 of 2014 Prayer in W.P.No.5053 of 2014:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment for the post of Constable in Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade without referring to FIR No.529 of 2013 on the file of Deevattipatti Police Station, which was subsequently closed as ".Mistake of Fact".. M.Damodharan ... Pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-20-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: March 20, 2014 + CRL.A. 666/2009 VINOD @ CHAVANI Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Jaideep Malik, Advocate versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.1. Challenge in the present appeal is the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 16.01.2008, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge had convicted the appellant for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life together with fine of Rs.5,000/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is reproduced as under:- On 14.02.2005. Constable Ashok Kumar, while posted at PS Mangolpuri, was on duty in F a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Pakistan Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-20-2014
1. Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.:Cricket and judicial decision making may not have much in common except that there is an umpire in the game of cricket deciding 'appeals' and judging various issues arising during the progress of the game and there may be some judges sitting in their courtrooms who may sometimes be tempted to hit the ball over the boundary rope. Likeness of a judge to an umpire in a game of cricket has already been alluded to by none other than Lord Denning in his judgment delivered in the case ofJones v. National Coal Board[(1957) 2 Q.B. 55]. His lordship had observed that "Even in England, however, a Judge is not a mere umpire to answer the question "How's that?". His object, above all, is to find out the truth, and to do justice according to law;". Another common factor between the two is that both cricket and judicial decision making are played/ practised by gentlemen, and now by noble ladies as well. All of us know that cricket has moulded itself over time and has adap...
Tag this Judgment!