Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-1975
Reported in : AIR1976Delhi87
ORDER1. The Plaintiff claiming to be the registered proprietor and grantee of Indian Patent No. 1133W dated 29th November, 1967. Pertaining to air cooler by this application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code seeks an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and representatives from adapting the method and Process for manufacturing, selling or offering for sale air coolers in infringement of the plaintiff's aforesaid patent with further relief for rendition of accounts. 2. The case of the Plaintiff is that he has legal right to the aforementioned patent for the period ending 29th November 1983, and to refrain others from exploiting the said patent rights without permission from him. According to the Plaintiff the air cooler of the subject patent has distinct advantages ever the air cooler presently known in the art and that the coolers of the subject patent have acquired status and reputation The Grievance of the Plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-28-1975
Reported in : AIR1975P& H246
Muni Lal Verma, J.1.The question which has been referred by the Division Bench to us for decision, reads thus :--'Whether the mere fact that according to the particular practice prevailing in the High Court before the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Mahant Bikram Das Chela Mahant Lachhman Dass Mahant, Amritsar v. Financial Commr. Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh, (1974) 76 Pun LR 451 = (AIR 1975 Punj & Har 1) (FB) (supra) Letters Patent Appeals were entertained by the office contrary to the requirements of Rule 3 of Chapter 2-C of Volume V of the Rules and Orders of the High Court without being accompanied by three sets of spare paper-books, and time, was allowed to file the same, and for filing the copies even beyond the expiry of the period of limitation the appeals were entertained and admitted does or does not in law constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeals which were filed before the judgment of the Full Bench.'2. The circumsta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-14-1975
Reported in : ILR1975Delhi1b; 1975RLR582
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) After the respondent Shri Hardit Singh Giani was appointed as a liquidator of National Planners Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, in voluntary winding up proceedings, the liquidation proceedings came under the supervision of the Court. The Registrar of Companies applied to the District Judge exercising jurisdiction under a notification issued under section 10 of the Companies Act for removal of the liquidator. The District Judge granted the prayer and removed the liquidator. An appeal was filed against the decision of the District Judge under section 483 of the Companies Act to this Court. Hardy, J. (as he then was) by the order under appeal set aside the order of the District Judge and reappointed Shri Giani as the liquidator and also Shri V. S. Joneja, Official liquidator, as the additional liquidator directing both of them to complete the winding up proceedings expeditiously. This appeal under clause 10 of the letters Patent has been filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-17-1975
Reported in : [1975]35STC368(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). 2. The respondent runs an Udipi Hotel and admittedly does not keep regular accounts. The respondent servers idli, dosa, etc., in the hotel and also makes certain sales, which have been described in the judgment of the Tribunal as 'counter sales'. By these 'counter sales' are meant sales of the aforesaid articles of food at the counter for being taken away by the customers for consumption. For the assessment periods from 1st April, 1961, to 31st March, 1962, and 1st April, 1962, to 31st March, 1963, the Sales Tax Officer held that these counter sales were taxable and estimated the same at 3 per cent of the turnover of the estimated sales. The respondent preferred appeals against these decisions to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, but the same were rejected. The respondent then approached the Sales Tax Tribunal by way of second appeals against these d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-29-1975
Reported in : (1976)1MLJ131
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. This writ of certiorari is to call for the records in I.D. No. 90 of 1974, dated 24th February, 1975 and quash the same.2. The National Textile Employees' Union, Coimbatore, is the petitioner. In the affidavit in support of the petition, it is stated as follows:3. A settlement, dated 10th of September, 1973 was reached under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) binding all workmen of the second respondent Mills, on issues relating to permanency of Badli Workers and their lay off. The petitioner Union and respondents 3 to 6, Unions, were parties to the settlement. Clause 14 of that Settlement, which gave rise to the present dispute is as follows:It is agreed to fill up the present vacancies, 28 badlies (selected on seniority) out of the complement of 32 and over and above this, 22 badlies in spinning shall be made permanent. The remaining badlies numbering 32 shall be made permanent on 1st April, 1974. The badlies i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jun-17-1975
Reported in : AIR1976Ker3
Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. This is an appeal by the 2nd counter-petitioner in Arbitration Act Petition No. 1 of 1955 on the file of the Quilon District Court. Under Ext. D3 agreement entered into between the 1st and 2nd counter-petitioners the 2nd counter-petitioner supplied cashewnuts to the 1st counter petitioner. The same was delivered at Quilon on 17-2-1964. Under the agreement any dispute regarding the quality of the goods has to be referred to an arbitration and the Arbitration Rules which govern the parties provide for appointment of Arbitrators, the time within which that should be done and the procedure which should be followed by Arbitrators. Complaining that the quality of the goods supplied was inferior the 1st counter-petitioner requested the 2nd counter-petitioner to appoint an Arbitrator. There was some attempt at settling the matter otherwise and when that failed the 1st counter-petitioner pressed for a reference to Arbitration. He informed the Secretary, Indian Cashew Expo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-26-1975
O'Connor v. Donaldson - 422 U.S. 563 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) O'Connor v. Donaldson No. 74-8 Argued January 15, 1975 Decided June 26, 1975 422 U.S. 563 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent, who was confined almost 15 years "for care, maintenance, and treatment" as a mental patient in a Florida state hospital, brought this action for damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against petitioner, the hospital's superintendent, and other staff members, alleging that they had intentionally and maliciously deprived him of his constitutional right to liberty. The evidence showed that respondent, whose frequent requests for release had been rejected by petitioner notwithstanding undertakings by responsible persons to care for him if necessary, was dangerous neither to himself nor others, and, if mentally ill, had not received treatment. Petitioner's principal defense was that he had acted in good ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-09-1975
United States v. Moore - 423 U.S. 122 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122 (1975) United States v. Moore No. 74-759 Argued October 7, 1975 Decided December 9, 1975 423 U.S. 122 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent, a licensed physician registered under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., was convicted of knowing and unlawful distribution and dispensation of methadone (a controlled substance or addictive drug used in the treatment of heroin addicts) in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), which makes it unlawful for "any person" knowingly or intentionally to distribute or dispense a controlled substance, except as authorized by the CSA. The evidence disclosed that respondent prescribed large quantities of methadone for patients without giving them adequate physical examinations or specific instructions for its use and charged fees according to the quantity ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-23-1975
Reported in : AIR1976Ori52
S.K. Ray, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant has preferred this appeal from the confirming decision of a single Judge of this Court dismissing the suit, under Article 4 of Orissa High Court Order 1948, read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.2. The appellant filed his suit in the court of the Sub-Judge, Puri for a declaration that he is the hereditary trustee of Radhaballav Math with all its endowments located in the town of Puri being the nominated successor of the late Mahant Shri Radhacharan Das who died in 1963.Undisputedly, Radhaballav Math is an institution of Numbark cult. Its last Mahant was Radhacharan Das who was recognised by all public authorities including defendant No. 1, the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner). The plaintiff alleges that the late Mahant validly initiated him as his Chela according to customary and usual religious rites prevailing at the Math and the sect to which the institution belonged, and also exe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-25-1975
Reported in : [1976]102ITR665(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee--M/s. Fenner Woodroffe & Company Ltd. (since changed to Gordon Woodrofle (Belting) Ltd.), Madras, was incorporated in India as a private limited company in 1959. It carries on business in the manufacture and sale of leather belting and other industrial leather, having been licensed under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act. The assessee-company entered into an agreement onJuly 22, 1959, with M/s. Henry F. Cockill & Sons Ltd., a company incorporated in England, The relevant portions of the agreement read as follows :'(A) Cockill has for many years been engaged in the manufacture of (inter alia) the product (as defined in Clause 1 of this agreement) and during that time has discovered and acquired valuable secret processes and technical knowledge in connection with such manufacture.(B) The Indian company is proposing to undertake the manufacture of the product in India and has requested Cockill to make available to it Cockill's secret processes...
Tag this Judgment!