Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-10-1996
Reported in : AIR1997Bom279; 1997(2)BomCR30; 1997(1)MhLj327
ORDERDr. B. P. Saraf, J. 1. This is an appeal from the order of the learned single Judge rejecting the application of the appellants under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the 'Act') for extending the time for making the award. 2. When this appeal was taken up for hearing Mr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, learned counsel for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of this appeal. It was contended that no a appeal lies against an order under Section 28 of the Act refusing to enlarge the time for making an award. Our attention was drawn to Section 39 of the Act, which provides for appeal, to show that an order under Section 28 refusing to enlarge time for making the award is not included in the list of appealable orders set out in sub-section (i) thereof. It was submitted that appeal lies under Section 39(i) of the Act only from the orders specified therein and 'from no others'. It was also submitted that no appeal lies from the impugned order eve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-08-1996
Reported in : AIR1997Delhi79; 1996(25)ARBLR522(Delhi); 62(1996)DLT291; 1996(37)DRJ14; 1996RLR280
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, C. J. 1. The point arising in the case is of considerable importance in regard to patents registered in India by foreigners and not kept in use in our country and thereby seriously affecting our market and economy. The foreigner in this case is seeking temporary injunction against other users and the question is whether the non-use of the patented mechanical device by the foreigner in India can be a ground for refusing temporary injunction? 2. The appellant, Franz Xayer Huemer, is an Austrian citizen. He filed the Suit No. 468 of 1994 on 26-2-1994 seeking a permanent Injunction restraining the respondent from making, using, exercising, selling or distributing any items which infringe the 5 patents belonging to the plaintiff bearing Numbers 161520, 162589, 162369, 163591 and 163095 and for a mandatory injunction to hand over to the plaintiff all goods, advertising material or items which infringe the above patents, and for accounts of the profits. The plaint is f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Nov-21-1996
Reported in : (1998)65ITD125(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against an order of the CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, pertaining to asst. yr. 1992-93.2. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is against refusal of exemption under s. 10(22A) of the IT Act, 1961. Alternatively, it was also mentioned that denying of the benefit of exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act, 1961, is unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. While refusing the exemption as such, the CIT(A) has acted on the relevant considerations demonstrated in the ground Nos. 4 to 8 of the grounds of appeal ignoring the fact that in the past the trust had been allowed exemption under s. 10(22A). The last plea of the assessee was that the CIT(A) has also erred in not allowing depreciation under s. 35(1)(iv) of the IT Act on the ground that the assessee-trust had been allowed exemption under ss. 11 and 12 of the Act, which is factually incorrect and contrary to the material available on record.3. The assessee is a charitable trust duly registered under th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-21-1996
Reported in : (1998)61TTJ(Del)29
ORDERJ. P. BENGRA, J.M. :This is an appeal by the assessed against an order of the CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, pertaining to asst. yr. 1992-93.2. The main grievance of the assessed in this appeal is against refusal of exemption under s. 10(22A) of the IT Act, 1961. Alternatively, it was also mentioned that denying of the benefit of exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act, 1961, is unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. While refusing the exemption as such, the CIT(A) has acted on the relevant considerations demonstrated in the ground Nos. 4 to 8 of the grounds of appeal ignoring the fact that in the past the trust had been allowed exemption under s. 10(22A). The last plea of the assessed was that the CIT(A) has also erred in not allowing depreciation under s. 35(1)(iv) of the IT Act on the ground that the assesee-trust had been allowed exemption under ss. 11 and 12 of the Act, which is factually incorrect and contrary to the material available on record.3. The assessed is a charitable trust duly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-11-1996
Reported in : AIR1996Cal367,(1997)1CALLT123(HC),100CWN562
ORDER1. This hearing arises out of an application for temporary injunction filed on behalf of the plaintiff. In the suit the plaintiff prays for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, and assignees etc. from in any way in fringing or attempting to infringe Patent No. 170171 of the plaintiff; Decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents etc. from in any way manufacturing, selling or offering for sale or advertising any toilet soap bearing the Trade Mark 'VIGIL' or any other trade mark and having the composition that is covered under and/or within the range of Patent No. 170171 of the plaintiff. Delivery upon oath of all toilet soaps already manufactured and in possession, power and custody of the defendant No. 1 and/or the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and/ or their agents and servants that in any way infringe and/ or have been manufactured in accordance with the Pat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-26-1996
Reported in : AIR1997Guj83; (1997)1GLR362
ORDERS.D. Shah, J.1. Is human blood a 'drug'? AND Are Pathologists tapping blood from human beings manufacturing 'drug' so as to incur liability to obtain licence under Section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940?are the questions posed for consideration of this court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by some of the Pathologists and Association of Pathologists.2. The respondents, namely, the Director of Food and Drugs has by notices, dated 8th July, 1983 called upon the petitioners individually to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for breach of Section 18(c) of the said Act inasmuch as they have been carrying on the activities of tapping blood, collecting the blood and of selling the blood for which licence is required'under Section 18(c) of the said Act and since such activity was being carried on by them without obtaining licence, actions were required to be taken against them. The issuance of such notice to various pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-09-1996
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)600; AIR1996SC1321; 1996(1)ARBLR153(SC); JT1996(1)SC222a; 1996(1)SCALE237; (1996)2SCC132; [1996]1SCR245
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel, for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 8, 1991 passed by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in Civil Revision Case No. 74 (SH) of 1989. The aforesaid decision was made by the Division Bench of the High Court on a reference by a learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court in the said Civil Revision Case No. 74 (SH) of 1989. The learned Single Judge having disagreed with a decision by a Single Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Union of India v. D.S. Nanda & Co., in Civil Revision No. 33(H) of 1985 (1991 GLJ 400) that no revision lies against the appellate judgment passed in the appeal Under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, referred the Revision Case to the Division Bench for deciding the maintainability of the Revision Petition filed under Rule 36A of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Janitia Hills 1937, against the appellate order dated March 28, 1968 pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-19-1996
Reported in : (1997)115PLR643
R.L. Anand, J.1. By this judgment I dispose of two Civil Revision Nos. 3079 of 1995 (Harbans Singh Kohli and Ors. v. Man Singh and Ors.), and 3797 of 1995 (Man Singh and Anr. v. H.S. Kohli and Ors.) as both these revision petitions have arisen from one judgment dated 7th June, 1995, passed by the Court of District Judge, Ludhiana, who partly accepted the appeal of the plaintiffs (petitioners of C.R. No. 3797 of 1995) and allowed in part the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., filed by the plaintiffs Man Singh and Paramjit Singh Bhatia, who are the petitioners of C.R. No. 3797 of 1995, and granted temporary injunction in their favour restraining the sale of 1292 equity shares of the land measuring 1200 sq. yards till the disposal of the suit against the defendants, i.e., H.S. Kohli; H.S. Kohli and Sons - H.U.F. Firm; Smt. Arvinder Kaur Kohli and M/s Preet Builders Private Limited. It may be mentioned here that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 aforesaid have filed a separate Civil Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-16-1996
Reported in : (1997)2MLJ228
Srinivasan, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent, as to the maintainability of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The respondent obtained a decree in O.S. No. 192 of 1974 and in execution of the same, brought the properties to sale. Sale was held which was sought to be set aside by the appellant herein by an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Section 151 of the Code. The application was dismissed by the Executing Court and on appeal in C.M.A. No. 775 of 1986, a single Judge of this Court affirmed the order of the Executing Court, it is against the said order, the present L.P. Appeal has been filed.3. An objection is raised by the respondent that the C.M.A. filed in this Court was under Section 104, read with Order 43, Rule 1(j) of the Code and therefore, by virtue of the provision of Section 104(2) of the Code, no further appeal will lie from an order passed in the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Decided on : May-01-1996
R.N. Sahay, J.1. This litigation has a chequered history and the facts of the case are rather involved and hence has to be narrated with sufficient clarity.2. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal arise out of a proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. In pursuance of a declaration dated 16.2.1982 (Ext. 7) 36.86 acres of land (out of 43.92 acres) bearing plot Nos. 4/5 and 10 appertaining to khata No. 151 of village Phusari in the district of Lohardaga, was acquired for a project called Phulsari Sapahi Nala'. The lands of khata No. 151 under khewat No. 2/9 R.S. Plot Nos. 4, 5 and 10 were recorded under the revisional survey record of rights as 'gair majarua malik'. But according to the appellant-State of Bihar, the aforesaid land vested in the State of Bihar as per notification dated 18.8.V995 (Ext. M). Therefore, the State claimed that it was entitled to get compensation for the lands acquired under Ext. 7.3. The case of the respondent was that before vesting of ...
Tag this Judgment!