Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal642
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by Mallick, J. on the 28th August, 1962 whereby he dismissed two applications for the appointment of a Receiver, one in respect of a Trust known as the 'Ram Ranjan Trust', and another in respect of a Trust Known as the Brojabala Trust. The applications were dismissed on a preliminary ground, namely, that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain them. The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the applications. The short facts are as follows: Maharaja Ram Ranjan Chakravartti of Hetampur created a trust known as the 'Ram Ranjan Trust', by a Deed of trust dated 11th August, 1887; and his wife Maharani Padma Sundari Debi created another trust called the 'Brojabala Trust' by a Deed of trust dated 27th February, 1895. These trusts related to various immoveable properties situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The trusts were created for various purposes including the Seva Puja of certain deities and for certain charitable p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : LC2007(2)13; 2007(34)PTC444(Del)
J.M. Malik, J. 1. This order shall decide the two appeals mentioned above which entail similar questions of facts and law. The controversy in these two appeals swirls around the question, 'is there any presumption in favor of the validity of the patent for grant of temporary injunction in favor of patentee.' The present appeals are directed against the orders of the learned Trial Court dated 7th February, 2007, wherein the Trial Court dismissed the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff/appellant, the applications filed by the defendants/ respondents under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC were permitted and ex parte injunction orders dated 6th October, 2006 were vacated. However, the defendants/respondents were directed to maintain accounts of the sales they make of the impugned product. The defendants/respondents were also directed to submit the statement of accounts after every three months in the court and to submit undertakings that they would pay the damages...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad896; (1931)60MLJ25
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a rule calling upon 'the Minister, Public Health, Government of Madras,' to show cause why an order made by him on the 11th of March, 1929, should not be quashed on certiorari. The ground on which the rule was obtained may be shortly stated. The Nuzvid Union Board granted permission to a certain person to establish a rice mill within its jurisdiction. The Collector suspended the resolution of the Board, as, in his opinion, the establishment of a mill in the locality in question 'was likely to be detrimental to public health'. The Local Government passed proceedings under Sections 38 and 196 of the Local Boards Act (1920), on the 9th of June, 1928, directing that the Collector's order 'shall continue in force permanently'. Subsequently this order was rescinded on the 11th of March, 1929, the result being that permission to establish the mill was accorded. This rule was issued at the instance of certain residents of the locality who complained that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) 458/2009 % Reserved on:11. h January, 2013 Pronounced on:15. h March, 2013 RECKITT BENKISER INDIA LTD Through: ...... Appellant Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shikha Sachdev, Advocate. Versus WYETH LTD. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Pravin Anand, Advocate with Mr. Vaishali Mittal, Advocate and Ms. Abhilasha Nautiyal, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J 1.Reference has been made to this Full Bench, by a Division Bench of this court, vide the reference order dated 8.10.2010 in this FAO(OS), for this larger Bench to consider as to whether a Division Bench of this court in the case of Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Amit Jain & Anr. 2009 (39) PTC 10.(Del) (DB) has correctly held that publication abroad by existence of the design in the records of the Registrar of designs which is open for public inspection...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1966Cal205
Mitter, J 1. The question before the Full Bench in this reference arises out of an application for a certificate under Article 138(1) of the Constitution in a proposed appeal from a decision of a division bench of this Court dated April 4, 1963 by which the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting specific performance of a contract for sale of a property in Calcutta was reversed. The decision of the division bench not being one of affirmance entitles the petitioner to a certificate as a matter of course if the valuation test laid down in the said article is salislied. The suit for specific performance was filed on February 13, 1945 on a contract which fixed the price of the premises No. 81, Girish Park North in Calcutta al Rs. 15,000. On March 25, 1940 this property was put up to sale at an auction and was purchased by the respondent No. 8 Dhone Krishna Daw for a sum of Rs. 24,000. The petitioner Brindaban Chandra Basak filed a suit on April 16, 1946 impleading all necessary par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 19(1981)DLT334; 1981RLR339
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) Is an order passed under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act (to be called the Act) refusing to enlarge the time for the arbitrator to make the award appealable under Section 39 of the Act is the point involved in this appeal against the order of T.P.S. Ghawla, J. by which the learned Judge refused to extend time under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act on an application moved by Union of India, the appellant. (2) A contract was entered into between the appellant and the respondent for the supply of soap sometime in 1966. The full price for the Supply was made in August, 196/. However, the appellant/Union of India by its letter of 3.2.1968 informed the respondent that the supplies by it were found defective on test. The said claim was not accepted by the respondent. As the agreement contained an arbitration clause the matter was referred to Mr. P. Ramchandani, Arbitrator, to adjudicate the dispute on 20.8.1969. He entered upon a reference on the same date. Proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1918)35MLJ23
1. This was a suit brought by Messrs. Best & Co. Ltd., a firm of merchants carrying on business in this city, for a declaration that an agreement dated the 4th October 1915 entered into by them with the Collector of Madras of the day was binding on the parties. The action is brought because, on the 22nd May 1917, the Collector purporting to act in consequence of the Income-Tax Act, V of 1916 declared that the agreement was no longer binding on him and repudiated it. The plaintiffs tendered the sum that they sad to be due under the agreement and brought this action to safeguard their rights under it. The agreement is one made with the Collector of Madras under the provisions of the former Income-Tax Act (II of 1886) Section 31, which enables persons, instead of being reassessed every year, to arrange with the Collector for a definite sum to be assessed for a fixed period and in this case the period agreed upon was five years from the 1st April 1915. The plaintiffs originally sued the Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. The fight over ownership of the shares of an airline, whose aircrafts ply at high altitude at sub zero temperatures, has generated a lot of heat and litigation which has led to the filing of these appeals. Both the Appeals are filed for challenging the Judgment and Order dated 4th May, 2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J) in Execution Application No. 161 of 2009 with Chamber Summons Nos. 551/09, 729/09, 603/10 & 477/11 and Notice No. 734 of 2009 in Arbitration Award dated 12 April 2007. The Appellants in Appeal No. 345 of 2011 (Jet Airways (India) Limited) was the first Claimant, whereas the Appellants in the cross-Appeal No. 456 of 2011 (Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara & ors.) were the second Claimants in the proceedings of Arbitration to which a reference would be made in due course. 2. Initially, the second Claimants being the Appellants in Appeal No. 456 of 2011 (Appeal (Lodg.) No. 293 of 2011) had alone filed their Appeal and on 6th May, 2011, we had passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H165
Achhru Ram, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Lahore, affirming, on appeal, the decision of a Subordinate Judge of Delhi refusing to stay the suit brought by respondent 1 against the appellants and respondent 2 for a declaration to the effect that the agreement dated 14th July 1942, executed between respondent 1 and the appellants was invalid and unenforceable on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, and for cancellation of the aforesaid agreement as well as for recovery of a sum Of Rs. 2,50,000.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated as follows: The Board of trustees of the Hindu College, Delhi, wanted to construct a hostel for the College on the land allotted to the said College by the University of Delhi in what is called 'the University Town.' On 3rd May 1940, they requisitioned the services of Messrs. Master Sathe and Bhuta, a firm of architects, carrying on business in New Delhi, for prepa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001IVAD(Delhi)549; 2001(59)DRJ17; 2002(1)RAJ482
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 13th October, 1998. The facts leading to the appeal are as follows :- 2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office in New Delhi. It is engaged in the business of marketing and sale of ice cream under the brand name 'Milk Food 100% Ice Cream'. The first respondent is also a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office at Gaya, Bihar. 3. The appellant and the first respondent entered into an agreement on April 7, 1992 by virtue of which first respondent was to manufacture and pack in its factory for the appellant, range of ice cream that may be mutually agreed upon between the parties from time to time. The agreement was to remain in force for a period of five years. The first respondent was required to deposit a sum of Rs. ten lakhs with the appellant for a per...
Tag this Judgment!