Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-20-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 03.01.2012 % Judgment delivered on: 20.01.2012 + FAO(OS) No. 7/2011 DR. ALOYS WOBBEN ...... APPELLANT Vs YOGESH MEHRA and ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant: Mr T.R. Andhyarujina and Mr Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Advocates with Mr Pravin Anand, Ms Binny Kalra, Mr Shrawan Chopra, Ms Kruttika Vijay, Ms Saukshmya T. and Mr Soumik Ghosal, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr Soli Sorabjee, Sr. Advocate with Mr Nikhil Sakhardande, Mr Amit Singh, Ms Mehernaz Mehta and Ms Swagata Naik, Advocates for Respondent Nos.1. and .2. Mr Arvind Datar, Sr. Advocate with Mr R. Parthasarathy, Mr Ayush Sharma and Mr Sudarshan Singh, Advocates for Respondent No..3. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.1. The only issue we are called upon to grapple with is: should the respondents/the original defendants be permitted to continue the prosecution of proceed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-19-2012
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. 1. The interplay of the jurisdictions to be exercised under Letters Patent and as the First Appellate Court while dealing with non-appealable orders passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of ordinary original civil jurisdiction has given rise to the present reference. The question, thus, which arises for consideration is: “If an order is passed by the learned single Judge in exercise of Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction which is not appealable under Section 104 (1) read with Order 43 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Code”) whether the remedy would be under Section 10 (1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) or under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent?” 2. The occasion to make this reference arose on account of the fact that at various times pronouncements of this Court have treated it as an “either” or “or” sit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-30-2012
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. 1. The three appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) raise a common issue of law and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. ITA No.315/2010 was admitted vide order dated 27th January, 2011 with the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that know-how, business contacts, business information, etc. acquired as part of the slump sale described as „goodwill‟were not entitled for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act?” 3. To appreciate the question of law involved in the present appeal the relevant facts necessary for disposal of ITA No.315/2010 are enumerated as below:- (i) The assessee Company is presently engaged in transmission and distribution business of power. The business involves, inter alia, designing, manufacturing, supplying, installation, testi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-30-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1561/2009 & I.A.No.7966/2011 Date of Decision:30. h November, 2012 IN THE MATTER OF INTEL CORPORATION ..... Plaintiff Through : Mr. Manav Kumar, Advocate versus MR. THEVA MURUGAN & ORS ..... Defendants Through : None. CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit praying inter alia for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing its trademark, for passing off, delivery up, damages, etc.2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is engaged in the business of developing advanced integrated digital technology communication industries. platform for the computing and The plaintiff is aggrieved by the use of a deceptively similar mark as its trademark INTEL by the defendants in their trade name INTEL EXPRESS CARGO and INTEL IMPEX.3. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendants are engaged in the busine...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-03-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. Appellant’s suit seeking decree in sum of `25,34,964.62 stated to be the royalty due under an agreement dated July 23, 1975 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, holding that the claim, being based upon a patent must fail for the reason Section 68 of the Patents Act, 1970 mandated an assignment of a patent by way of a license to be not only in writing but filed with the Controller of Patents for being registered with him. 2. It is not in dispute that the license deed Ex.PW-1/3 upon which the suit has been filed was neither filed before the Registrar of Patents and thus was not registered. 3. It is the case of the appellant that Ex.PW-1/3 does not pertain to a patent but to a „know-how‟. 4. The learned Single Judge has noted that Clause 1 of the deed in question itself refers to the grant being to use the invention for the manufacture of ABS Resigns covered by Indian Patent No.110090 and 118359. The learned Single Judge has not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-20-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P. (C) No. 7553 of 2003 Reserved on: November 11, 2011 Decision on: January 20, 2012 MOOLCHAND KHARAITI RAM HOSPITAL and AYURVEDIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Shanti Bhushan and Mr. Raj Birbal, Senior Advocates with Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate. versus MOOLCHAND KHARAITI RAM HOSPITAL KARAMCHARI UNION and ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Parikh with Ms. Mamta Saxena and Mr. Pranay Raina, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Shandilya, Ms. Ekta Mehta and Ms. Joanee Pudussery, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Shyam Moorjani, Advocate for Intervenors. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT 20.01.2012 Introduction 1.1 The Petitioner, the management of the Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospital and Ayurvedic Research Institute ('Management'), challenges an Award dated 14th January 2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II ('Tribunal') in Industrial Dispute No.2. of 1999 as well as the subsequent order dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-21-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:20. h September, 2012 Date of Decision:21. t December, 2012 % + + + + + + + + + ITA 754/2010 & C.M. APPL. No.15650/2012 ITA 773/2010 ITA 775/2010 ITA 1092/2010 ITA 1101/2010 ITA 1103/2010 ITA 1104/2010 ITA 1112/2010 ITA 1124/2010 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Karan Chauhan, Advocate. Versus VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION Through: ......Respondent Mr. N. K. Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajender Singhvi, Mr. Amit Aggarwal and Mr. Anurag Dubey, Advocate for applicant/ interveners. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.These are nine appeals, all filed by Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short). ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010, 775/2010, 1092/2010, 1101/2010, 1103/2010, 1104/2010, 1112/2010 & 1124/2010 questions of law were framed by this Court on 21.11.2011 in ITA Nos.754/2010, 773...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-11-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of CO 2 Assam Riffles‟award of punishment of severe reprimand dated 26th April, 2008 and another punishment of severe reprimand dated 21st August, 2008, also by CO 2 Assam Riffles. 2. Relevant facts to comprehend the disputes raised by the petitioner are that he was enrolled in the Army on 19th December, 1984 as a Graduate direct recruit Havaldar Instructor in Education Corps, AEC Education Instructors. He was deputed to various training institutes and units to impart education instructions to ORs in the Army and given them an opportunity to improve their educational qualifications. 3. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Naib/Subedar on 1st February, 2008. According to the petitioner, under the medical regulations, he and his wife are entitled to free medical treatment in the military hospitals. In the year 1999, it was diagnosed that the petitioner and his wife are suffering from infertility, and are, therefore, req...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-13-2012
Reported in : 2012(5)CTC(IP)1
ManmohanSingh, J. 1. By this order, I shall dispose of IA No.19079/2011 filed in the CS(OS) No.2982/2011 by the plaintiff under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and I.A. No.19081/2011 filed under Section 80(2) CPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are referred as under: 2.1 The plaintiff has filed a suit seeking declaration and consequential reliefs of injunction on the premise that the complaint preferred by the defendant no. 1 against the plaintiff before the defendant no. 2 on the basis of which, the defendant no. 2 is acting upon and interdicting the consignments which are being imported by the plaintiff without preferring an infringement action in accordance with Patents Act 1970 amounts to groundless threats and ought to be prevented by the court. 2.2 The plaintiff claims the following reliefs in the suit: a) An order of declaration, declaring that the complaint filed by the Defendant no. 1 dated 29th September 2010 before Defendant No. 2 for an alleged infringement of Patent no. 1890...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-17-2012
Introduction 1. Oil India Limited (‘OIL’) has in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenged the majority Award dated 6th August 2004 of the three member Arbitral Tribunal (‘AT’) that adjudicated the disputes between OIL and the Respondent Essar Oil Limited (‘EOL’) arising out of a contract dated 8th May 1995 entered into between the parties for drilling of offshore wells on turnkey basis offshore Saurashtra Coast, Gujarat and offshore North East Coast (‘NEC’), Orissa for the purpose of exploration of oil and/or gas. Background Facts 2. OIL issued Notice Inviting Tender (‘NIT’) dated 19th July 1993 for setting of four Offshore Exploratory Oil/Gas Wells, three Wells at Saurashtra Offshore of the West Coast of Gujarat and one Well in NEC, Offshore of Orissa (drilled with self-propelled floater including all supporting services for the exploration of oil and/or gas o...
Tag this Judgment!