1
Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-07-1994
Reported in : AIR1996HP70
ORDER1. The plaintiffs-petitioner is a public limited Company, having its registered office at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, and a factory at Rajpura (Punjab). The petitioners are manufacturing and selling Vanaspati oil with the trade mark 'GAGAN' with a flower like device white printed on dark blue background since the year 1974 in tins, HDP containers and pouches. The defendants-respondent, according to the petitioners, have started, as per the plaintiff, with mala fide and illegal designs using the mark deceptively similar to the trade mark of the plaintiffs-petitioner and the defendants-respondent are using a flower like device and the word 'ANGAN', being used by the defendant is deceptively similar to the trade name 'GAGAN' of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs-petitioner have filed Suit No. 151 of 1993 wherein the following reliefs have been prayed for:'(i) A decree and an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, representatives and dealers from m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : May-09-1994
Reported in : AIR1995HP15
Bhawani Singh, J. 1. The petitionerhas challenged the constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Kutlehar Forest (Acquisition of Management) Act, 1992 (hereafter shortly, 'the Management Acquisition Act' or 'this Act'), on numerous grounds being recorded in the latter part of this judgment. Before passing of this Act, the State Government issued Notification No. Rev. D(F)7-1/90, dated January 19, 1990, under Section 3 of the Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Article 1957 directing the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to take over management and possession of Kutlehar Jagir Forest from the petitioner with the assistance of the Collector. This Notification was assailed by the petitioner through Civil Writ Petition No. 42 of 1990 (Shri Mohinder Pal v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others). By orders of January 22, 1990 and June 26, 1990, operation of this Notification was stayed and the writ petition admitted for hearing. Since both the actions of the respondents relate to the same f...
Tag this Judgment!