Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)SCALE372; 2008AIRSCW1953
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.04.2005 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in O.S.A. (SR) No. 1900 of 2005 in and by which the Division Bench dismissed the said appeal on the ground of limitation. The appellant preferred O.S.A. before the Division Bench of the High Court under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the Single Judge dated 26.12.2003 in Application No. 1409 of 2003 in C.S. No. 7 of 1958.3. According to the appellant, he purchased an extent of 4 acres of agricultural land situated in Sy. No. 46 of Raidurg Paigah Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District, Andhra Pradesh under a registered sale deed dated 11.10.1996. The appellant's title flows from Sri Mala Ramulu and others who have purchased land under a registered sale deed dated 12.11.1962 from Sri Waliullah Hussaini. The said Sri Waliullah Hussaini derives title from his father Late Sri Moulvi Syed Akbar Hussaini. Late Sri Moulvi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Broderick & Bascom Co. - 201 U.S. 166 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Broderick & Bascom Co., 201 U.S. 166 (1906) A. Leschen & Sons Rope Company v. Broderick & Bascom Rope Company No. 187 Argued March 1, 1906 Decided March 19, 1906 201 U.S. 166 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus A trademark for wire rope of a red or other distinctively colored streak applied to or woven in the rope is too wide and too indefinite. Where color is made the essential feature of a trademark, it must be so Page 201 U. S. 167 defined or connected with some symbol or design that other manufacturers may know what they can safely do. A trademark not limited to a particular color must stand or fall in its entirety, and if the description is too broad, it cannot be sustained by proof that only a particular color is used. Quaere whether mere color not impressed in a particular design can constitute a valid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(4)AWC3114
D. K. Seth, J. 1. The opposite party Nos. 2. 3 and 4 filed O.S. No. 842 of 1999 before the learned Additional Civil Judge. IIIrd Court. Allahabad for the following reliefs :(a) That by decree of mandatory injunction the defendants be directed not to transfer the plaintiffs from City Allahabad to any other city. (b) That the cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs. (c) That any other and further reliefs be also awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendant which the Court deems fit and proper In the interest of justice. 2. In connection with the said suit, the opposite parry Nos. 2. 3 and 4 had filed an application for injunction. By an order dated 28th July, 1999 notices were directed to be issued on the petitioner, while the learned trial court was not satisfiedthat ad interim order could be issued before issuing the notice under Rule 3 of Order XXXIX. This order was challenged by the Opposite Party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in Civil Revision No. 940 of 1999. The learned Additional Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1937Cal365
ORDERLort-Williams, J.1. The petitioner is the original inventor, on the record, of the Indian Letters Patent No. 14245 dated 12th July 1928. On 11th May 1936 he attended at the Patent Office in Calcutta for the purpose of depositing the renewal fee in respect of his patent. It was intimated to him that his patent had been revoked by the Patna High Court, and on the next day he received a letter calling upon him to show cause why, in view of the judgment passed by that Court in Suit No. 1 of 1931 his renewal fee should be accepted. The petitioner was not a party to that suit. That was a suit by one Ghanesyamdas Jagnani against Ram Narayan Ganeshnarain, The plaintiff apparently alleged that he was the proprietor of the patent in question, which had been originally granted to the petitioner. But the fact was that although the petitioner had assigned his rights to that plaintiff, the latter had not registered the assignment under the provisions of Section 63, Indian Patents and Designs Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON:12. 04.2017 FAO (OS) 107/2017, CM APPL.13603-13605/2017 M/S OVERNITE EXPRESS LTD. THR ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ..... Appellants Through: Mr. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Upadhyaya and Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Advocates. Versus KANWAR SINGH PRADHAN (DECEASED) THR LRS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge rejecting its petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015 (hereafter the Act). The main or rather the only ground urged to say that the award was patently and manifestly illegal was that the learned Arbitral Tribunal ignored the mandate of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.2. The parties had entered into a registered lease deed on 31.12.2004, for a period of 21 years; this was in respect of basemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2004)89ITD259(Delhi)
1. The instant miscellaneous application u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed by the applicant / assessee against the order of I.T.A.T. dated 13.3.2002 passed by the learned Vice President of I.T.A.T as Third Member and consequent order of I.T.A.T. Bench 'D', New Delhi dated 31.3.2002 which was passed for giving effect to the order of the learned Third Member.2. Shri P.N. Monga and Shri. Manu Monga appeared for the applicant whereas Shri. B. L. Kardam, Ld. Sr. D.R. represented the Department.3. The assessee moved this miscellaneous application on 17.5.2000 against the order of I.T.A.T. It also filed appeal against the order of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 17.1.2004 directed I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench 'D' to dispose off the miscellaneous application. Since the appeal was heard by learned Third Member, the Hon'ble President of I.T.A.T. constituted a Special Bench for the hearing and disposal of the present mis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Marek v. Chesney - 473 U.S. 1 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Marek v. Chesney, 473 U.S. 1 (1985) Marek v. Chesney No. 83-1437 Argued December 5, 1984 Decided June 27, 1985 473 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner police officers, in answering a call on a domestic disturbance, shot and killed respondent's adult son. Respondent, in his own behalf and as administrator of his son's estate, filed suit against petitioners in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state tort law. Prior to trial, petitioners made a timely offer of settlement of $100,000, expressly including accrued costs and attorney's fees, but respondent did not accept the offer. The case went to trial and respondent was awarded $5,000 on the state law claim, $52,000 for the 1983 violation, and $3,000 in punitive damages. Respondent then filed a request for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988, which provides that a prevailing party in a 1983 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1957Ori42
Mohapatra, J. 1. This is a petition for leave to appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution against a decision dated 16th November 1955 of this Court in O.J.C. 401 of 1954. The petitioner alleges that he started business In January 1943 at the instance of the ex-Ruler of Mayurbhanj. The business was running in the name of Indian Chemical Products, the main purpose being manufacture of industrial alcohol and essential oils.It was agreed between the petitioner and the ex-Ruler of Mayurbhanj that each would contribute a moiety towards the capital of the business and each would have to suffer half the loss, if any, in the business. The petitioner further alleges that after the merger of the State of Mayurbhanj within the State of Orissa, the business had to be closed as the petitioner had suffered considerable loss.Under the provisions of the Administration of Mayurbhanj State Order, 1949, the petitioner laid his claim against the State of Mayurbhanj on 24th March 1949 before the Sub-div...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2659; 2002(2)ARBLR641(SC); 2002(6)BomCR619; JT2002(5)SC444; 2002(5)SCALE193; (2002)6SCC201; [2002]SUPP1SCR148
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave is granted in all the SLPs.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, dated 29th February, 2000. Indeed both the parties to the dispute have filed appeals assailing the judgment of the High Court.3. M/s. Shyama Charan Agarwala & Sons (hereinafter referred to as 'the Contractor') were entrusted with the work of construction of married accommodation for 80MCPOs/CPOs/80Pos and 16 sailors at Goa Naval Area, Varunapuri, Mangor Hill, Vasco-da-Gama, by the Union of India (for short 'the UOI') through the Chief Engineer (Navy), Cochin Naval Base under the agreement No. CECZ/GOA-12 of 1990-91. The work order was placed vide letter No. 8319/43/E-8, dated 20-7-1990 for Rs. 2,62,44,057-94. The date of commencement of the work was 16-8-1990 and the work was to be completed by 15-11-1991.4. The same contractor by another agreement No. CECZ/GOA/40 of 1991-92 was entrusted with the work of construction of married accommodation for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1973Delhi24; 8(1972)DLT285
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The appellant's building was requisitioned by the Government under section 3 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 and a sum of Rs. 3212.50 was offered to the appellant as compensation per month for the use of the building. As the appellant did not agree to accept the said amount, the compensation payable to the appellant was determined by Shri G. R. Luthra (Judge, Small Causes Court, Delhi) acting as arbitrator under section 8 of the Act at Rs. 4,658.00 per month. In the appeal against the award of the arbitrator, V. D. Misra, J. of this Court increased' the amount of compensation to Rs. 6,423.00 per month under section 11 of the Act. The Government was also ordered to spend a sum of Rs. 6,423.00 per year for the maintenance and repairs of the building.(2) Limitation for a further appeal was as follows: -(A)Appeal to a Division Bench of this Court under clause 10 of the Letters Patent - 30 days; and (b) Appeal to the Supreme Court ...
Tag this Judgment!