Court : Delhi
$~ * + + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 737/2016 & I.A. 7469/2016 KONINLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand with versus AMAZESTORE & ORS. Ms. Vaishali Mittal, Mr. Siddhant Chamola, Ms. Vrinda Gambhir, Advocates ..... Defendants Through: None AND CS(COMM) 1170/2016 & I.A. 2685/2017, 16768/2018 KONINLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand with Ms. Vaishali Mittal, Mr. Siddhant Chamola, Ms. Vrinda Gambhir, Advocates Versus AMITKUMAR KANTILAL JAIN & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: None Reserved on:08. h April, 2019 Date of Decision:22. d April, 2019 CS(COMM) 737/2016 & CS(COMM) 1170/2016 Page 1 of 48 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN MANMOHAN, J: JUDGMENT BACKGROUND1 Present suits have been filed seeking decree of damages as well as permanent injunction restraining violation of multiple statutory and common law rights, namely: a. Piracy of registered design number 253140 in CS(COMM) 737 of 2016. The prayer cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi248
Prakash Narain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court sitting on the original side whereby an interim injunction was issued against the appellant on a motion by the respondent.2. The respondent/Plaintiff manufactures and sells playing cards. On 8th February, 1968, the respondent/Plaintiff registered under No. 233581 in Class 16 a trade mark consisting of the device of a tractor and the word 'tractor' for his playing cards. The appellant defendant also trades in playing cards and it is alleged by the respondent that early in 1971 he came to know that the appellant had adopted the trade mark 'Ferguson' in relation to its playing cards and was marketing the same under that name also using the device of a tractor on the back of the playing cards. The respondent thereforee, brought an action against the appellant seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant from infringing the registered trade mark of the respondent and passing off ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1998]234ITR335(Delhi)
Head Note:INCOME TAXCompany--APPLICABILITY OF S. 115JA--Effect of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement in the case of foreign company Ratio & Held :Article 7 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Netherland only limits quantum of taxable income of applicant-company and applicant remains liable to pay tax on its business profits attributable to its permanent establishment in India and, thereforee, applicant company would not go outside the purview of section 115JA by virtue of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Application :Also to current assessment year. A.Y. :1997-98 Dt.Ruling. :20-7-1998Income Tax Act 1961 s.115JA Company--APPLICABILITY OF S. 115JA--Foreign company--Non-applicability of some of provisions of s. 115JA Ratio :Non-applicability of some of the provisions of section 115JA in toto to a foreign company cannot be a ground to exempt foreign company altogether from purview of section 115JA. Held :In the case of Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Ross minste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2666/2010 & CMs. 5307/2010 (stay), 4979/2012 % KING AIRWAYS Through Reserved on:6. h December, 2012 Decided on:12. h February , 2013 ..... Petitioner Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Mr. Raghavendra Bajaj, Mr. Pranav Bhaskar, Advs. versus CAPTAIN MANJIT SINGH Through + ..... Respondent Mr. Shohit Chaudhary, Adv. W.P.(C) 7444/2010 MANJIT SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Shohit Chaudhary, Adv. versus KING AIRWAYS Through + ..... Respondent Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Mr. Raghavendra Bajaj, Mr. Pranav Bhaskar, Advs. W.P.(C) 3389/2010 & CMs. 6801/2010 (stay), 4985/2012 KING AIRWAYS Through ..... Petitioner Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Mr. Raghavendra Bajaj, Mr. Pranav Bhaskar, Advs. versus ND KATHURIA Through W.P.(C) 2666/2010 & conn. Matters ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 7445/2010 ND KATHURIA Through versus KING AIRWAYS Through + ..... Petitioner Mr. Shohit Chau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2666/2010 & CMs. 5307/2010 (stay), 4979/2012 % KING AIRWAYS Through Reserved on:6. h December, 2012 Decided on:12. h February , 2013 ..... Petitioner Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Mr. Raghavendra Bajaj, Mr. Pranav Bhaskar, Advs. versus CAPTAIN MANJIT SINGH Through + ..... Respondent Mr. Shohit Chaudhary, Adv. W.P.(C) 7444/2010 MANJIT SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Shohit Chaudhary, Adv. versus KING AIRWAYS Through + ..... Respondent Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Mr. Raghavendra Bajaj, Mr. Pranav Bhaskar, Advs. W.P.(C) 3389/2010 & CMs. 6801/2010 (stay), 4985/2012 KING AIRWAYS Through ..... Petitioner Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Mr. Raghavendra Bajaj, Mr. Pranav Bhaskar, Advs. versus ND KATHURIA Through W.P.(C) 2666/2010 & conn. Matters ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 7445/2010 ND KATHURIA Through versus KING AIRWAYS Through + ..... Petitioner Mr. Shohit Chau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2666/2010 & CMs. 5307/2010 (stay), 4979/2012 % KING AIRWAYS Through Reserved on:6. h December, 2012 Decided on:12. h February , 2013 ..... Petitioner Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Mr. Raghavendra Bajaj, Mr. Pranav Bhaskar, Advs. versus CAPTAIN MANJIT SINGH Through + ..... Respondent Mr. Shohit Chaudhary, Adv. W.P.(C) 7444/2010 MANJIT SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Shohit Chaudhary, Adv. versus KING AIRWAYS Through + ..... Respondent Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Mr. Raghavendra Bajaj, Mr. Pranav Bhaskar, Advs. W.P.(C) 3389/2010 & CMs. 6801/2010 (stay), 4985/2012 KING AIRWAYS Through ..... Petitioner Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Mr. Raghavendra Bajaj, Mr. Pranav Bhaskar, Advs. versus ND KATHURIA Through W.P.(C) 2666/2010 & conn. Matters ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 7445/2010 ND KATHURIA Through versus KING AIRWAYS Through + ..... Petitioner Mr. Shohit Chau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: June 13, 2014 + RC. Rev. No.109/2013 SUDERSHAN KUMAR Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Narender Sharma, Adv. versus HARISH CHAND GARG Through + ..... Respondent Mr.J.P.Sengh, Sr.Adv. with Mr.B.B.Gupta, Mr.Sumeet Batra & Ms.Ankita Gupta, Advs. RC. Rev. No.113/2013 & C.M. No.4912/2013 SURESH KUMAR GUPTA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Gaurav Aggarwal, Adv. with Mr.M.P.Sinha, Adv. versus SUDERSHAN KUMAR Through ..... Respondent Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Narender Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. Mr. Sudershan Kumar, landlord/owner filed two eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for bonafide requirement, against his two tenants, namely, Mr.Suresh Kumar Gupta and Mr.Harish Chand Garg.2. The said eviction petitions were filed by him with respect to Shop No.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: June 13, 2014 + RC. Rev. No.109/2013 SUDERSHAN KUMAR Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Narender Sharma, Adv. versus HARISH CHAND GARG Through + ..... Respondent Mr.J.P.Sengh, Sr.Adv. with Mr.B.B.Gupta, Mr.Sumeet Batra & Ms.Ankita Gupta, Advs. RC. Rev. No.113/2013 & C.M. No.4912/2013 SURESH KUMAR GUPTA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Gaurav Aggarwal, Adv. with Mr.M.P.Sinha, Adv. versus SUDERSHAN KUMAR Through ..... Respondent Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Narender Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. Mr. Sudershan Kumar, landlord/owner filed two eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for bonafide requirement, against his two tenants, namely, Mr.Suresh Kumar Gupta and Mr.Harish Chand Garg.2. The said eviction petitions were filed by him with respect to Shop No.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 3148/2015 Reserved on:5. h September, 2019 Pronounced on:21. t October, 2019 OXBRIDGE ASSOCIATES LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Jayant Mehta, Mr.Sumeet Lall, Mr.Nikhil Lal & Mr.Sajal Jain, Advocates. versus MR ATUL KUMRA ..... Defendant Through: Mr.Amit Singh, Mr.Rajan Singh & Mr.Atul Kumra in Person. % CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN JUDGMENT IA13852017 in CS(OS) 3148/2015 (under Order XIII-A r/w Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC) 1. The plaintiff has filed the abovementioned suit for a decree against the defendant in the sum of 1,55,46,586.62 alongwith pendente lite and future interest. By the present application, the plaintiff seeks summary judgment under Order XIII-A Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) CS(OS) 3148/2015 Page 1 of 29 in the sum claimed or alternatively, a decree upon admission for a lesser amount, allegedly admitted by the defendant.2. During the course of this s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)(78)ELT344TriDel
1. In these two appeals filed by M/s. Prosoya Industries Ltd. (formerly known as Kalani Industries Pvt. Ltd.), Indore, the issue involved is the classification of the goods described as "Bio Health Heater". The importers had sought the classification under Tariff subheading No.9021.19 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff), as Orthopaedic appliance. On the basis of the adjudication order passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi, Customs duty has been demanded under sub-heading No. 3926.90, as article of plastics, by the Appraiser (Customs). The appeal against the order of the Appraiser (Customs) demanding customs duty under sub-heading No. 3926.90 of the Tariff has been rejected by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The Revenue has filed cross objections with regard to the appeal filed by the appellants. As both the appeals emerge from the same bill of entry, they were taken together for hearing and are being disposed o...
Tag this Judgment!