Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-26-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)CHN608,LC2008(3)319,2009(41)PTC689(Cal)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The parties jostle for more leg-space on the Ayurveda bandwagon as it chugs its way to the Occident with its load of mystique and oriental herbs and spices. The plaintiff asserts its exclusive right over the word mark 'Ayur' on the strength of a black and white label registration showing the word 'Ayur' in an unremarkable font with an elliptical band around it. Such label is registered in many classes. The word mark 'Ayu' is registered in favour of the plaintiff in class 5 covering medicinal and like products. On the strength of the word 'Ayur' being the most prominent part of the plaintiff's label registrations and its proprietary right to the word 'Ayu', the plaintiff seeks to stop the defendant's use of any trademark carrying any part of either word over which the plaintiff claims exclusivity.2. Both parties are substantial. The plaintiff's impressive sales figures and advertisement expenses are matched by the defendant's substantial reputation and noticeable p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-17-2008
Reported in : [2009]150CompCas113(Cal),[2008]88SCL23(Cal)
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This appeal is against an Order and/or judgment dated 6th July, 2007 passed by the Learned Appellate Tribunal.2. The facts of this case briefly are as follows:An order was passed by the Special Director (Appeals) Foreign Exchange Management Act forming a common adjudication order dated 30th December, 2004 where the adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lacs against the appellant company and Rs. 10 lacs against the appellant Managing Director for contravention of Section 10(6) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') on the ground that the appellants after taking remittances of foreign exchange of US Dollars 35766 and FRF 374000 on 18th April, 2000 and 19th June, 2000 respectively for import of refrigeration machinery so as to use the same in Hotel Industry in fact failed to do so and also failed to file the proofs thereof.3. It further appears that the appellant company filed an appeal before the Learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-09-2008
Reported in : (2008)3CALLT252(HC),[2008(119)FLR444],(2009)ILLJ785Cal
Manik Mohan Sarkar, J.1. This matter has been directed against the judgment and order dated November 13, 1997 passed by the learned Judge, Employees Insurance Court, West Bengal in Case No. 33 of 1988.2. In brief, the petitioner's case is that the Insurance Inspector of the petitioner Corporation visited the factory of opposite party at Birlapur, P.O. Birlapur within the District of 24-Parganas (South) in between the period from 17.6.1986 to 19.6.1986 for the purpose of inspection of records of the factory covering the period from June, 1984 to January, 1985 and reported that he found the employees of the said factory were paid overtime allowances for the period from 27.01.1985 to 31.3.1986 amount to Rs. 13,67,560.42 P. but the opposite parties did not pay any contribution on the said sum. an amount of Rs. 99,148/- being @ 7.25%.Petitioner Corporation issued letter vide No. C/Ins.-V/41-4203/978-79 dated 21.8.1986 to the opposite party requesting them to pay the amount of said contribut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-04-2008
Reported in : (2008)3CALLT362(HC)
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. An application for contempt and an application for review are considered analogously by consent of the parties.2. The application for contempt is filed, inter alia, alleging willful and deliberate violation and disobedience of the order dated December 3, 1998 passed by Satya Brata Sinha, J. (as His Lordship then was) in Matter No. 4241 of 1991. The said application for contempt was filed on or about December 2, 1999.3. An application seeking review and re-calling of the said order dated December 3, 1998, inter alia, directing mutation of the name of the writ petitioner in relation to the premises No. 145 Sundernagar, New Delhi, is filed by the respondents in the writ petition on or about July 5, 2000.4. The relevant facts leading to filing of the said applications are summarised as under:Under the instructions of the Government of India, relating to the disposal of building sites in the New Capital of Delhi, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi granted a perpetu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-18-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)CHN546
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. These writ petitions were filed as Public Interest Litigations challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of about 1000 acres of land within the following mouzas, a) Gopalnagar, b) Singherbheri, c) Beraberi, d) Khaserberi and e) Bajemelia within the Police Station of Singur in the District of Hooghly.2. Such acquisition process has been challenged by the writ petitioners mainly on the ground that the said area of land is the source of livelihood of 10,000 agricultural households and destroying the most of fertile lands which cannot be replaced, apart from the other subsidiary industries.3. The writ petitioners challenged the entire acquisition process on the ground of mala fide and arbitrary intention and further for violating the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that for setting up a Small Car Project by Tatas would have been an acquisition of land following the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (here...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-29-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)CHN268
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgement dated 21st February, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura in Sessions Trial No. 1/November/2002 arising out of Sessions Case No. 16(9) of 2001 convicting the appellant-Subal Duley, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and an order dated 22nd February, 2005 by which the convict was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are that about eight years prior to the date of the incident the deceased Sibnath had developed an illicit relationship with Chhabirani, wife of the accused Kinkar. She at that point of time was a mother of two children. The deceased was at that point of time a student reading in school. Chhabirani and Sibnath had eloped togeth...
Tag this Judgment!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 : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-01-2008
Reported in : AIR2008HP78,II(2008)DMC315,2008(1)ShimLC399
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is the husband' s appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, dismissing the petition instituted by the husband against the wife on the ground of divorce under Section 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The parties were married on 1st March, 1979 at Pathankot. A male child was born to them on 27.2.1982. The appellant alleges that they lived together for 14 years and the respondent has withdrawn from the company of the appellant without any lawful excuse. She used to quarrel constantly and has not joined his company on the pretext that the appellant is having illicit sexual relations with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Smt. Sushma, which allegations have not been substantiated by her. His further allegation is that in 1981 when he was employed and posted at Indora the respondent used to visit his office and the residences of his superior officers using abusive language against him, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-27-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)ShimLC229
Surinder Singh, J.1. The respondents were put on trial and acquitted of the offences under Sections 323, 365 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly abducting Atul Puri, causing simple injuries to Ravi Kumar and Yog Raj Gupta and causing the death of Rajneesh Singh.2. In brief, the prosecution story, as emerges from the prosecution witnesses can be stated thus: Harvinder Singh was the driver and Suraj Singh respondent was conductor of bus No. HIE-1387 of H.R.T.C. Kullu depot running between Jammu and Manali. S/Shri Ravi Dogra (PW3), Yog Raj, Vikas Kalia, Jagat Ram, Balram Kumar (PW2), Nand Chand, Atul Puri and Rajneesh (deceased) were B.Sc. students of the Agriculture University Palampur and they used to stay in the campus hostel. On 14.11.1991, after watching the movie, in the evening, they went to a shop where the cricket match between India and Australia was being telecast. It ended around 11 p.m. All the above named students waited for the bus, to take a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : May-06-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)ShimLC290
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is the landlord's revision against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner-landlady seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the demised premises.2. The petitioner instituted eviction proceedings against the respondent on the allegation that the premises were required bona fide for use and occupation by her and her family consisting of her son, daughter-in-law, and two minor grand-children. It was pleaded that she was owner of the suit premises known as Kuldip Niwas, Chhota Shimla. The respondent was in occupation of one room, one kitchen-cum-bath room in the ground floor of the building. In her sworn testimony as PW-1, she proved that her family consisted of herself, her son who was serving in the Indian Army, his wife and two minor children studying in school at Shimla. PW-2 Smt. Vinay Sharma, daughter-in-law of the landlady corroborated the case of the petitioner on all material particulars. She testifie...
Tag this Judgment!