Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-06-1973
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi177
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) The America Lock Company is a partnership firm which carries on business as a manufacturer of locks of various types. Among other products, it manufactures cycle frame locks of horse-shoe shape for locking bicycles. Similarly, Western Engineering Company, is another partnership firm carrying on business as a manufacturer of locks, which also manufactures bicycle locks. The latter firm, i.e.. Western Engineering Company applied for the registration of a design of horse-shoe shape cycle lock used for locking bicycles, under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. This design was registered and allotted the number 125728 on 25th May, 1965. The former firm, i.e., America Lock Company also applied under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, for the registration of 'he design of a somewhat similar horse-shoe cycle lock for locking bicycles. Its design was also registered on 25th March, 1967, the application having been made on 29th October, 1966. The number allotted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-27-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Delhi105; 10(1974)DLT158; ILR1973Delhi452
Aggarwal, J.1. This first appeal by Neiveli Ceramics and Refractories Ltd. Arises out of a petition filed by Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Limited (hereinafter called the 'petitioner-company') for the revocation of Patent No. 103411 granted in favor of the respondent to the petition on January 13, 1966.2. The controversy in appeal is with regard to the meaning to be given to the expression ' a High Court ' in Section 26 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1911 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). According to the appellant, the expression 'a High Court' in the said section means the High Court which would otherwise have jurisdiction over the person against whom the petition is filed under the Act or over the subject matter of such petition, and not 'any' High Court. According to the petitioner-company the aforesaid expression means any High Court and the jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain the petition under Section 26 of the Act is not circumscribed by limitation laid down in Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-13-1973
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi714
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by (1) The General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Calcutta, and (2) The Secretary, Railway Board, New Delhi, against the judgment of Jagjit Singh, J. dated February 3, 1971, whereby the learned Judge allowed Civil Writ Petition No. 699-D of 1963, quashed an order of the General Manager, dated July 25, 1957, and an order of the Railway Board, dated December 24, 1962, and directed the General Manager and the Secretary, Railway Board, respondents 1 and 2 in the Writ Petition (appellants herein), to reinstate the respondent herein, Ajit Kumar Bhattacharjee, in case he had not already attained the age of superannuation. (2) The respondent herein, Ajit Kumar Bhattacharjee, filed the aforesaid Civil Writ Petition in the following circumstances. He started his service on November 28, 1942, as a temporary Assistant Station Master in the then Bengal Nagpur Railway Company. He was confirmed on that post with effect from December ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-10-1973
Reported in : (1974)IILLJ243Del
ORDERPrithvi Raj, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner, It had Motors (P) Ltd., (herein to be called the company) has sought a declaration that the order of reference No. C-108/ALC/(4)/ 68-Lab, dated the 19th November, 1968, whereby the dispute about the entitlement of Bihari Lal, (herein to be called the workman) to pay provident fund, bonus and allowances as admissible to the checkers of the company was referred for adjudication to the Additional Industrial Tribunal (herein to be called The Tribunal) is ultra virus of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein to be called the Act) and that the award dated the 2nd April, 1971, made by the Tribunal as published in Delhi Gazette, Part VI, dated the 3rd June, 1971, be quashed.2. Brief facts of the case are that the workman was employed by the company and in 1950 he was working as a checker. The company in partnership with M/s. Mool Chand Shripal Jain, owned a petrol pump at Azadpur, Delhi, which was subsequently shifted to G.T. Karn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-03-1973
Reported in : AIR1975Delhi19
1. On February 19, 1968, Smt. Krishna Wanti Puri widow of Late Dharam Pal Puri instituted an action against the Life Insurance Corporation for the recovery of Rs, 85,000/- and profits and interest on the four policies.2. Dharam Pal Puri when he was alive insured his life with the Corporation and took out four policies, particulars whereof are as under:-Date Policy Amount Policy No. 12-10-1959 Rs. 10,000/- 6081583; 12-6-1961 Rs. 25,000/- 6151357 10-3-1964 Rs. 45,000/- 6297731 15-6-1964 Rs. 5,000/- 6315544 3. Dharam Pal Puri died on 5th August 1964. The widow claims the amount of the four policies from the Corporation on the ground that she is the assignee. The Corporation resists the suit. The main ground of defense is that Dharam Pal Puri was suffering from heart disease, that he know about his ailment, that he had consulted doctors about his disease but fraudulently suppressed these facts. In the proposal forms and the personal statements he made declarations knowing them to be f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-01-1973
Reported in : 1974RLR68
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) Respondent sued the appellant for eviction and one of the grounds was non-payment of arrears of rent. The Controller made an order on 18.11.72 U/S 15(I) that arrears of Rs. 15,750.00 be deposited within a month. The tenant deposited only Rs. 14,750.00. Respondent finding the deposit short by Rs 1,000.00 made an application U/S 15(7) for striking out the defense. Appellant Was served with this application on 24.1.73. Appellant then on 27.1.73. applied that due to bona fide mistake deposit less by Rs. 1,000.00 was made and he be allowed to deposit the same. It was allowed on the same day but the counsel did not know of this at least until 1.2.73. Deposit was made on 7.2.73 and application U/S 15(7) waa also fixed for same day Delay was not condoned and defense was struck out. Appellant appealed against the same and remained unsuccessful. He then filed second appeal.] It was held:-(2) Taking into consideration the working days in January and February, 19 3 the Rent Con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-25-1973
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi311
Rajinder Sachar, J. (1) The Judgment will also dispose of C.W. 463/72. This petition challenges the constitutional validity of the Sick Textile Undertaking (taking over of Management) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the impugned Act) and the impugned Order, under Section 18A of the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act).(2) Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act and the other petitioners arc the directors and the share-holders of the first petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Trade and respondent No. 2 is a National Textile Corporation Ltd. a Government of India undertaking and respondent No. 3 is Madhya Pradesh State Textile Corporation Limited, an undertaking controlled by and belonging to the State of Madhya Pradesh. The first petitioner was incorporated in 1907 and owns and runs an industrial undertaking at Indorc and manufactures therein textile doth.(3) By an order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-10-1973
Reported in : [1974]44CompCas228(Delhi); ILR1973Delhi322
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This Order will also dispose of Company Petitions No. 1 and 2 of 1973, which have been filed by the husband of the petitioner and another shareholder, respectively, of the Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the Company) for calling a meeting of the Company (the calling of which 'otherwise' has become 'impracticable'), and for certain other directions (which are not uniform in all the three petitions) without which the petitioner's purpose in calling such a meeting may not be served. Under S. 186 of the Companies Act of 1956 (hereafter called the Act), the Court has been given power to call a meeting other than an annual general meeting; section 167 of the Act enables the Central Government alone to call an annual general meeting. To the details of these I shall revert later. It is necessary, to start with, to notice briefly the facts which have led to these petitions. (2) The Company was registered in the year 1916 as a public limited Company, but...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-20-1973
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi419
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) This judgment will also dispose of Cr. Appeal 136 of 1973 filed by Hukam Chand and Jai Chand. who will hereafter be called the appellants. The appellants arc brothers. Their brother Bishan Chand, who was also an accused in this case, is said to be absconding and is not available for arrest. (2) This is a case of quadruple murder in village Mahipal Pur; the facts alleged by the prosecution are briefly as follows. (3) Kishan Chand alias Billoo, brother of the appellants, was murdered some time in July, 1970. In that connection Rajbir son of Chhote Lal (one of the four deceased in this case) and Shri Bhagwan (another deceased) son of Jagdish Chander (P. W. 16) were convicted by the Sessions Court and each of them awarded life imprisonment on 30-4-1971. Before the appeal in that case was decided (it is stated to have been subsequently set aside by this Court) the present occurrence took place on account of the aforesaid enmity. (4) Two days earlier to the present occu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-20-1973
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi282
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises interesting questions of law in relation to the implementation of and the rights and liabilities arising under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act 54 of 1969, hereinafter for convenience referred to as the Monopolies Act, and the construction of its provisions.(2) Petitioner No. 1, the Trieveni Engineering Works Ltd., is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2, Shri Kanhaya Lal Sawhney, is a Director of petitioner No. 1 with effect from February 26,1971. He was previously a Director of the Upper India Sugar Mills Limited but on that company's amalgamation with petitioner No. 1 became the latter's Director. The amalgamation of the two companies came about as a result of a formal order of this court dated February 8, 1971 and was effective as from the close of business hours on January 31, 1970. (3) The Monopolies Act came into force on J...
Tag this Judgment!