Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-11-2001
Reported in : 95(2002)DLT830
Vijender Jain, J.1. Plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction, inter alia, praying for injunction against infringement of design, passing off and rendition of accounts. It is the case of the applicants-plaintiffs that plaintiff No. 1 is a company registered in India and plaintiff No. 2 is a Corporation existing under the laws of Republic of China and having its registered officer at Taiwan. The applicants are the sole distributor and constituted attorney in India for the Top Open Locks and Pin Locks manufactured by plaintiff No. 2.2. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the applicants-plaintiffs, has contended that plaintiffs are manufacturing unique and distinctive locks since the period of its registration under the provisions of Designs Act, 2000. Some of the salient features of the plaintiffs Top Open Locks are as under:-a) Top View: (i) It is a shackle having five (pentagon) layers.(ii) There is one top layer, two corner layers and two flat layers.(iii) The shac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-27-2001
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!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jun-28-2001
Reported in : (2001)72TTJ(Del)1007
ORDERMiss Moksh Mahajan, A.M.These two appeals filed by the assessed as well by the revenue are consolidated and disposed of by a single order as common issue is involved in both the appeals.2. Taking up the assesses appeal filed in ITA No. 2524/Del/1996 first, Shn Ajay Vohra, the learned authorised representative submitted that the assessed is a charitable trust. The aforesaid trust was started in 1961 by Late Sir Sobha Singh. It has been accepted as a charitable trust right till assessment year 1991-92. The objects of the trust have been listed in clause 30 of the trust deed (p 60 of the paper book). There are as many as 19 objects listed on pp 6 and 7 of the aforesaid trust deed. As per the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act, The assessed is allowed to accumulate 75 per cent of the income, subject to certain conditions. It has to give a notice in writing to the officer in the prescribed manner specifying the purpose for which the income is being accumulated or set apart and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-28-2001
1. These two appeals filed by the assessee as well by the revenue are consolidated and disposed of by a single order as common issue is involved in both the appeals.2. Taking up the assessee's appeal filed in ITA No. 2524/Delhi/96 first, Shri Ajay Vohra, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a Charitable Trust. The aforesaid Trust was started in 1961 by Late Sir Sobha Singh. It has been accepted as a Charitable Trust right till assessment year 1991-1992. The objects of the Trust have been listed in clause 30 of the Trust Deed (page 60 of the paper book). There are as many as 19 objects listed on pages 6 and 7 of the aforesaid Trust Deed.As per the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act, the assessee is allowed to accumulate 75% of the income, subject to certain conditions.It has to give a notice in writing to the officer in the prescribed manner specifying the purpose for which the income is being accumulated or set apart and the period for which the income is to be accumulated or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-07-2001
Reported in : 94(2001)DLT865
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The souring of relationship between joint venture partner's has given rise to the present dispute where the respondent is aggrieved by the alleged infringement of its patents by the appellant. A suit was thus filed by the respondent herein against the appellant for mandatory injunction from manufacturing and advertising as its own and selling the products of respondent for which respondent has registered patents and design, in India or any where in the world for the product range of electric contractors and accessories known as the D2 range. The present appeal arises from the impugned order dated 27.11.2000 of the learned Single Judge allowing interim application of the respondent is No. 8522/99 under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the order dated 27.11.2000 dismissing is No. 6504/2000 filed by the appellant after the judgment had been reserved by the learned Single Judge on the injunction application. 2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-27-2001
Reported in : 2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-23-2001
Reported in : 2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J. 1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-06-2001
Reported in : 2002CriLJ1218
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. The question which requires consideration here is whether aperson having the degree of Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery is entitled to practise modern medicine and to prescribe allopathic drugs.2. The petitioner obtained the degree of Kamil-e-Tib-o-Jarahat from Aligarh Muslim University in the year 1990 which is also described as Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery in the degree awarded by the University, a photocopy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The Janta Nursing Home being run by the petitioner in Kolhui district Maharajganj was inspected by a team consisting of a senior Medical Officer, a S.D.M. and a Drug Inspector on 26-8-2000 and in was found that allopathic drugs were being prescribed and administered to patients. A. F.I.R. was then lodged under Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act, against the petitiner and one Aurangzeb, who claimed to be the compounder at the Nursing Home. The present writ pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-10-2001
Reported in : 2001(5)ALD339; 2001(5)ALT723
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh in Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department is the appellant in this letters patent appeal, filed against the judgment of the teamed single Judge dated 31-7-2000 in Writ Petition No. 14245 of 2001. The parlies herein shall be referred to by their status in the writ petition.2. The petitioner (1st respondent herein) filed the above-mentioned writ petition praying for a declaration that the action of the authorities in not conducting elections to Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, is arbitrary, illegal, violative of fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution and contrary to the provisions contained in Part IX-A of the Constitution. The petitioner also prayed for a consequential direction to the respondents, namely the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the State Election Commission (for short 'the SEC') to take immediate steps for the conduct of elections to the 2nd res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-18-2001
Reported in : AIR2001Delhi414; 2001(60)DRJ85
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This appeal has been filed purportedly under Clause (10) of the Letters Parent of Lahore High Court as applicable to Delhi High Court. challenge is to the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 12.2.2001 in FAO 75 OF 2001 holding the same to be not maintainable under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act). Subject matter of the said appeal was order dated 12th January, 2001 passed by the Arbitrator appointed pursuant to the directions given by this court in OMP 173/2000.2. First appeal was filed as an application before the Arbitrator to implead respondents 2 to 6 herein was rejected by the Arbitrator on the ground that there was no arbitration agreement between the appellant and the said respondents and thereforee, there is no question of impleading respondent 2 to 6 herein as parties to the arbitration proceedings. In the FAO, stand of the appellant was that order of the Arbitrator is under Section 16(2) of the Act ...
Tag this Judgment!