Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-08-1996
Reported in : AIR1997Delhi79; 1996(25)ARBLR522(Delhi); 62(1996)DLT291; 1996(37)DRJ14; 1996RLR280
..... 2 years of bard work. his machine is low in cost, maintenance, mechanism, consumes less energy, has low operating costs and higher output as compared to lohiya machines. the plaintiffs devices are not inventions as defined in patents act, 1970 and there is no novelty. they are liable to be revoked on that very ground under section 64. further, on account of prior public knowledge and ..... intellectual property matters, is it sufficient to raise a 'triable issue' or is it necessary to make out prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury under order 39, rule 1, c.p.c.prima facie case 28. it is true that earlier, in the well-known case in american cyanamid v. ethican (interlocutory) 1975 ..... . he declared that the absolute right theory had come into the law a decade after the first patent act was passed and that it 'was time to be rid of that rule'. it was inconsistent with the constitution (article i cl. 8) and the act. he said that a patent is not a form of private property but a 'privilege' 'conditioned by a public purpose,' to promote the progress of science and useful ..... that suppression of patents has become common place. patents are multiplied to protect an economic barony or empire, not to put new discoveries to use for the common good.' protection to unused patents would result in economic barony or empire. douglas, j. quoted hamilton, patents and free enterprises (1941) (p. 161) 'it is common practice to make an invention and to secure a patent to block off .....
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 : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-16-1996
Reported in : 1997IAD(Delhi)420; 64(1996)DLT572; 1996(39)DRJ512
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) Whether an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condensation of delay in filing an appeal must accompany the memo of appeal? If the application is not so filed does it cease to be maintainable merely because it was filed a few days after the filing of the appeal? These are the questions of law of day to day recurrence, which arise for decision in this appeal.(2) The order of injunction which is under appeal was passed on 24.5.96. On 25.5.96 an application for certified copy of the order was made. Copy was ready on 28.5.96. The last day of filing the appeal was 27.6.1996. The appeal was filed on 2nd July, 1996. It was not accompanied by an application seeking condensation of delay in filing the appeal. The registry raised a few objections including one of the appeal being barred by time and brought it to the notice of the appellant's counsel. The appeal was returned to the appellant's counsel for removing the defects and refiling the same within o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-11-1996
Reported in : 1996VAD(Delhi)494; 1997CriLJ299; 1997(40)DRJ805
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) This is a revision against the judgment dated 4-3-1996 of the Additional Sessions Judge. Delhi in Crl. Appeal No.42/95 affirming the conviction of petitioners/accused under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act of which they had been convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and sentenced in consequence to rigorous imprisonment for six months as wall as a fine of Rs.5000.00 each, the sentence in default of payment of fine being simple imprisonment for three months.(2) Shorn of verbiage, the prosecution case is that on 14.8.1989, a raid was conducted by the Special Cell of Desu consisting of the Supdt. R.N.Maini (Public Witness 2), S.S.Gupta (Public Witness 3) and R.K.Anand (Public Witness 1) at the building bearing No.618 Dr. Mukherjee Nagar and it was found that the accused persons were committing theft of electrical energy from their domestic lighting meters for industrial purpose and it was also noticed that this theft was being committed with the hel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-01-1996
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(Delhi)242; 1996(38)DRJ73
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This order shall govern the disposal of FAO(OS) 115/96 and 116/96 Filed by the same appellant against the same respondents. (2) Suit 1808-A/95 was Filed by the appellant for appointment of an arbitrator relying upon a loan agreement dated 8.8.1980, wherein the respondent had agreed to pay certain amount to the appellant. Suit No. 622- A/95 was filed by the respondent seeking appointment of an arbitrator relying upon a hotel operation agreement where under the appellant had agreed to carry on hotel business in the premises of the respondent. The learned Single Judge has allowed both the prayers and appointed Mr Justice G.C. Jain, retired Judge of this Court as an arbitrator. All the disputes between the parties under the loan agreement as well as the hotel operation agreement and all the claims and counter-claims of the parties have been referred to him. By the same order, the learned Single Judge has rejected I.A. 7955/95 whereon an ex-parte interim injunction was g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-30-1996
Reported in : 63(1996)DLT971; 1997(40)DRJ441
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellant is directed against an order dated 24-5-96 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court directing the release of vessel M.V. Pranburi which was ordered to be arrested and detained by an earlier ex parte order dated 9.4.1996. (2) The facts in brief. The plaintiff entered into a contract dated 19-7-1995 for sale and purchase of non-Basmati Par boiled rice with the Government of Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, defendant No. 1 in the suit, whereunder the plaintiff agreed to sell to defendant No.1 50,000 Mt (5%) of non-Basmati Par boiled rice of Indian origin on the terms and conditions contained in the contract. A total of 40,000 Mt (approx.) of rice was supplied by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 and duly received by the latter. 2.1For the balance 10,500 Mt (5%), the plaintiff entered into a back-to-back contract dated 11-11-199$ with M/S Doon Valley Rice Ltd ( a duly incorporated company with the registered office at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-18-1996
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(Delhi)877; 1996(26)ARBLR425(Delhi); 63(1996)DLT671; 1996(38)DRJ748
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction against the defendant on the ground of passing off the trade mark Seflox used by the plaintiff for manufacturing its pharmaceutical preparations, now used by the defendant and selling products in the same name SEFLOX.(2) In para 5 of the plaint the plaintiff has stated that it has filed an application for registration under Applicant No 589743 in relation to medicinal and pharmaceutical products falling in class 5 of the Fourth Schedule of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The application was published in the Trade Mark Journal on the 1st February 1993. In para 7 the plaintiff has stated thus: That the Plaintiffs trade mark Seflox has already become distinctive and associated with the aforesaid goods on account of its long, continuous, extensive and exclusive user thereof. The public at large associates the said trade mark to the aforementioned goods of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been using the said t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-15-1996
Reported in : 1996IIAD(Delhi)580; 1996(36)DRJ462; (1996)IILLJ1110Del
M. Jagannadha Rao, J. (1) Delay is condoned.(2) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 4992 of 1994 dated 14.2.1995. The matter raises a point under Section 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. (3) The appellant is the management and was the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge. The management closed the factory with effect from 31.3.1993. A notice was, however, issued by the Recovery Officer for recovery of wages of Rs. 1,12,700 for 44 employees for the months of April and May 1993 under Section 25(0), that is to say, for the 2 months immediately after 31.3.1993. The notice proposed to recover the arrears of wages as arrears of land revenue. A writ petition, C.W. 4034/93 was filed by the management questioning the said notice. In that writ petition, counter was filed by the respondents. An interim order was passed by the Court on 24.11.1993 directing the management to deposit Rs. 1,12,700. Ultimately...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-19-1996
Reported in : 1996VAD(Delhi)153; 63(1996)DLT732; 1996(39)DRJ332
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) This Order will dispose of the application (IA 9643/91), filed by the respondent Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent DDA') under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Limitation Act') for condoning the delay in filing the objection? on behalf of the respondent Delhi Development Authority under Section 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act).(2) The facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned application, briefly stated, are that the arbitrator Shri G.R. Hingorani filed the award Along with the proceedings in the Registry of this Court. On arbitrator's filing the award Along with the proceedings, statutory notice was issued to the parties directing the parties to file objections, if any, within the prescribed time limit. 2.1 The limitation for filing an application for setting aside an award or getting an award remitted for re-considerati...
Tag this Judgment!