Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-24-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:24. 01.2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN W.P.No.35253 of 2013 Kongu Nadu Vettuva Gounder Elaingar Nala Sangam (Tamil Nadu) Reg. No.346/2013 Rep. by its General Secretary K.S.Raj Gounder @ S.Rajkumar S/o.Sadhasivam, No.28, Karuthipalayam Thamaraipalayam Post, Erode District. ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The Inspector General of Police West Zone, Coimbatore.2. The District Collector, Namakkal District.3. The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District, Namakkal.4. The Superintendent of Police, Erode District, Erode.5. The Inspector of Police Pallipalayam Police Station, Pallipalayam, Namakkal District. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to make vide publicity by way of putting up the flex board, making publicity through mike set in all over Namakkal, Karur, Erode, Salem, Coimbatore, Dindigul a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-10-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10-1-2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.R.K.AGRAWAL, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN WRIT PETITION No.496 of 2014 R.Santhosh Kumar .Petitioner vs The State of Tamilnadu, rep. By 1.The Director General of Police State Police Head Quarters Dr. Radhakrishnan Road Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. 2.The Inspector of Police (L&O) B15, Rathinapuri Police Station Coimbatore (Crime No.2652/2011) 3.The Inspector of Police (L&O) B7 Ramanathapuram Police Station Coimbatore 641 045 (Crime No.586/2010) 4.The Inspector of Police (Crime) B13, Podanur Police Station Coimbatore 641 023 (Crime No.1303/2013) 5.The Superintendent of Police CB CID3 SIDCo.Electronic Complex I Floor, Guindy Chennai 600 032.Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the fiRs.respondent to transfer the investigation in Crime Nos.2652/2011, 586/2010 and 1303/2013...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-13-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : September 11, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on : October 13, 2014 + FAO(OS) 389/2014 M/S. SOUTH INDIA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms.Pratibha M.Singh, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Saurabh S.Sinha, Ms.Jaya Manddia and Mr.Sanchit Aggarwal, Advocates versus GENERAL MILLS MARKETING INC. & ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Anuradha Salhotra, Advocate with Mr.Sumit Wadhwa and Mr.Tushar A.John, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Appellant the defendant in the suit, assails the order dated July 23, 2014, allowing the application filed by the respondent - plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure granting an interim injunction against the appellant restraining the appellant from using the mark DDAAZS or any other mark deceptively similar to that of the respondent - plaintiffs trade mark HAAGEN-DAZ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-05-2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :05. 11.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.S.RAVI Crl.A.(MD)No.206 of 2013 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2014 Karuppasamy .. Appellant/1st Accused Vs. State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam South Police Station, Virudhunagar District. Crime No.140 of 2007. .. Respondent/Complainant Criminal appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the conviction and sentence dated 14.06.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.95 of 2009 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. For Appellant : Mr.M.Daniel Manoharan For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh Addl.Public Prosecutor Judgment reserved on 28.10.2014 Judgment delivered on 05.11.2014 :JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.SELVAM, J.) Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the conviction and sentence dated 14th June, 2013 passed in Sessions Case No.95 of 2009 by the Principal District and Sessions Court,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-05-2014
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMIAL APPEAL No.1575 of 2009 05-03-2014 Shaik Riyaz....APPELLANT State of Andhra Pradesh....RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:- Smt.K.Lalitha COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:- Public Prosecutor : ?.Cases Referred: HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1575 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sr.Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The sole accused in S.C.No.91 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur was tried for the offence of committing murder of one Sr.Harijana Narasaiah at Hindupur on 01.09.2006. Through its judgment, dated 21.04.2008, the trial Court convicted the accused for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and imposed fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The Station House Officer, Hindupur received Ex.P1, complaint, submitted by P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-28-2014
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.450 OF201328-02-2014 J.P.Rao ...Petitioner The Union of India, rep., by its Secretary,Home Department, New Delhi & others...Respondents Counsel for Petitioner : Party-in-person Counsel for respondent Nos.1-3:Sri Ponnam Ashok Gourd Assistant Solicitor General Counsel for respondent Nos.4 &5:Government Pleader for GAD HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred 1.AIR201413 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.450 of 2013 Date:28. 02.2014 This Court made the following: ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) The above public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner a practicing advocate of this Court praying for the following reliefs: ".(A) Declare the action of the 1st responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-26-2014
$~13. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2185/2011 % Judgment dated 26.05.2014 ATLANTIC INDUSTRIES & ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through : Mr.C.M. Lall, Ms.Nancy Roy and Mr.Anuj Nair, Advs. versus SIMRON FOOD PROCESSORS (P) LTD ..... Defendant Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for injunction and damages for infringement of registered trademark, passing off and for infringement of copyright. Summons were issued in the suit on 08.09.2011. An interim injunction was granted against the defendant on 08.09.2011. Counsel for the defendant entered appearance on 11.11.2011.2. In the order dated 31.05.2012, defendant submitted that the defendant has already stopped using the trademark of plaintiffs and has no intention to use the same in future. Further, parties also sought time to file an application for recording the compromise. However, the counsel for the defendant was not able to get the compromise applica...
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 : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :25. h March, 2014 Date of Decision:28. h May, 2014 % + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.615/2011 ASIF @ SHABBU STATE ..... Appellant Through Mr. R.S. Dakha and Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocates. versus ..... Respondent Through Mr. RajatKatyal, APP with Inspector Manoj Pant, SHO Gandhi Nagar. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.688/2011 NADEEM @ CHICKNA ..... Appellant Through Mr. Gurbaksh Singh and Ms. RichaSamhita, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. RajatKatyal, APP with Inspector Manoj Pant, SHO Gandhi Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J: The impugned judgment dated 31st March, 2011 convicts Asif @ Shabbu and Nadeem @ Chikna under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC, for short) and Section 392 read with Section 397/34 IPC.2. By order on sentence dated 6th April, 2011, the two appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-20-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided On :20. 03.2014 + W.P.(C) 6224/2013 M/S GLYPH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. J.K. Mittal, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Mukesh Anand, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The petitioner challenges the decision of the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) whereby it ruled that an appeal in respect of refund and rebate claims is not maintainable before it in view of Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act since it finds specific mention in Section 83 after its amendment in 2011.2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner is a service tax assessee. It made a refund claim in respect of service tax export turn-over. Aggrieved by an order refusing the refund, it preferred an appeal to the CESTAT under Section 86. The Tribunal by the order impugned in this case accepted the revenues cont...
Tag this Judgment!