Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-27-2000
Reported in : 2000(56)DRJ539
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application for interim injunction in a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for infringement of its registered patents and designs in respect of electric contactors and its accessories known as 'D2' range. The plaintiff has submitted that the law of patents and design does not permit a third party to claim a concurrent user or even a bonafide user in respect of an infringement of a patent or design. The plaintiff is a French Company manufacturing electrical equipment. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff alleging infringement of its patents in respect of various items including contactors and overload relays.The defendant in reply to the interim application has pleaded as under:-a) The plaintiff does not have the locus standi to institute the presentproceedings. ,b). The design registrations relied upon in the plaint have lapsed.c) Functional shapes or mechanical devises cannot be the subject matter of design registration.d) The patents...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-26-2000
Reported in : 2000VAD(Delhi)874; 2000(2)ARBLR519(Delhi); 86(2000)DLT31; (2000)126PLR57
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. ADMIT. We heard Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Dr.A.M. Singhvi, learned senior advocate for the respondent and were taken through the record. 2. This appeal by appellants (plaintiffs) is directed against the order dated 17th September, 1999 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) holding that the respondent (defendant) was neither guilty of piracy nor copying of the disc of appellants being dis- tributed as a free collectible with their product 'Lays and Cheeto Chips', nor there was any unfair or dishonest competition on the part of the respondent in distributing such discs with their product 'Uncle Chipps'; and only restraining the respondent from distributing free collectibles, in the shape of round disc having groove/notch or grooves/notches. 3. The focus of the present case is 'advertising/promotional campaign' on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-21-2000
Reported in : 95(2002)DLT770
..... to affairs of the state involving national defense and public security and good neighbourly relations.' 35. the argument before the learned single judge was that order under section 18 of the army act, 1950 had been passed without any justifiable ..... conclusion possible except to say that the orders which are the subject matter of the writ petitions in the latent patent appeals are merely camouflage and orders have passed for extraneous reasons under the clock of innocuous form of orders of ..... found multiple injuries on the fore-head, chest and on the face. the doctor said that there were 39 injuries on the body of the hav. the doctor wanted to know about the next of kin and their address. col ..... order or orders which may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice of the facts and circumstances of the case; and(12) to award costs throughout in favor of petitioner.'127. the case of the petitioner is that the entire gcm proceedings are void in law. the facts and circumstances would ..... the president exercising pleasure doctrine cannot be delegated or allocated by the president to anyone else reversing the judgment of this court reported in 1970 lab ic 76.46. in samsher singh v. state of punjab and anr., : (1974)iillj465sc , a seven judges bench ..... court that there was no violation of the rules of natural justice. we fail to see how this case would help the respondents.150. deokinandan prasad v. state of bihar and ors., : (1971)illj557sc , the supreme court held that the right of public .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-06-2000
Reported in : 2000(55)DRJ654
Devinder Gupta, J.1. The appellant presented an application under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in this Court praying for interim measure of protection. The said application came up before learned single Judge on 4.6.2000. While issuing notice to the respondents for 7.8.2000 on the prayer of the appellant, a limited ex pane ad interim order was passed directing that 'any decision taken by the respondent will be subject to further orders of this Court. In the meantime, if the pipeling becomes operational, the respondents shall keep accounts of the steps and revenue taken by them.' Pursuant to the dusty notice issued, the respondent put in appearance through counsel on 7.8.2000. Time, as prayed, was allowed to file reply, which was to be filed within ten days. Three days' time was allowed to file rejoinder. Learned Single Judge, Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, made an observation that in the meanwhile, it will be i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Sep-29-2000
Reported in : (2000)(72)ECC648
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s Dabur India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. Dabur'), being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original dated 26.11.1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I. The matter relates to the classification and the liability to pay central excise duty in respect of the vegetable extracts manufactured and consumed for manufacturing exempted Ayurvedic Medicaments. Vegetable extracts were obtained in three different forms (i) liquid, (ii) semi-solid--paste, and (iii) dry--powder. It was mentioned in the show cause notice dated 30.8.1995 that such vegetable extracts classifiable under sub-heading No. 1301.90 of the Central Excise Tariff were stored and could be stored for a time. They could also be marketed and were actually marketed by other manufacturer of similar vegetable extracts, in different forms--liquid, semi-solid and dry forms. The appellants were getting such vegetable extracts also from outside and some of the vegetable extracts man...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-24-2000
Reported in : (2002)173CTR(Del)72
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. In these references, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') has referred the following common question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) for our opinion: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on proper construction of the collaboration agreement dated 9th June, 1961, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the entire payment of 1,25,000 Dutch Guilders was for the acquisition of patent rights by the assessed company?' 2. Though the references are four in number but they pertain to three assessment years, namely, assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72, for which the relevant previous years ended on 31st December of each of the previous calendar years. The question referred and the statements of cases drawn by the Tribunal being similar for all the years, this judgment will govern all the references. Although Tribunal's order in respect of assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-24-2000
Reported in : [2000]246ITR663(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. In these references, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following' common question under Section 256(1) for the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act') for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on proper construction of the collaboration agreement dated June 9, 1961, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the entire payment of 1,25,000 Dutch guilders was for the acquisition of patent rights by the assessee-company ?'2. Though the references are four in number they pertain to three assessment years, namely, assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72, for which the relevant previous years ended on December 31 of each of the previous calendar years. The question referred and the statements of cases drawn by the Tribunal being similar for all the years, this judgment will govern all the references. Although the Tribunal's order in respect of the assessment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-24-2000
Reported in : (2000)163CTR(Del)189; [2000]112TAXMAN423(Delhi)
Jain, J.In these references, at the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following common question under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on proper construction of the collaboration agreement dated 9-6-1961, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the entire payment of 1,25,000 Dutch Guilders was for the acquisition of patent rights by the assessee- company ?'2. Though the references are four in number but they pertain to three assessment years, namely, assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72, for which the relevant previous years ended on 31st December of each of the previous calendar years. The questions referred and the statements of cases drawn by the Tribunal being similar for all the years, this judgment will govern all the references. Although the Tribunal's order in respect of the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 does not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Nov-07-2000
Reported in : (2001)(74)ECC380
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Chandigarh Lithotripsy Centre, is whether the exemption contained in Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1.3.1988 is available to the "Lithotriper Model Triper X-1" and 'urological X-ray examination.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants had imported medical equipments against custom duty exemption certification dated 10.1.91 issued by the Directorate General of Health Services, New Delhi (DGHS) availing the exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus: that the Commissioner of Customs, under the impugned Order, confirmed the demand of Customs duty, imposed penalty and confiscated the impugned goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine, observing that the restrictions contained in the Notification come alive the moment the importer fail to comply with conditions; that these was continuing obligation on the part of the Appellants to discharge the obligations under the Notification; that the duty liability fel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-13-2000
Reported in : 2001(128)ELT353(Del)
ORDERM.K. Sharma, J.1. The present proceedings is the second bout of litigation between the parties. By the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the provisions of Sub-section (1A) of Section 14 and Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 156 of the Customs Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) as also Rules 3, 4, 9(c) and 9(e) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' for short . The writ petitioners have also sought for a further direction prohibiting the respondents from acting pursuant to the letter of demand dated 28th October, 1997 issued by the respondents.2. The petitioner No. 1 - Company carries on the business of manufacturing, amongst others, high quality sponge iron, hot rod coils and plates. On 24th March, 1987, the petitioner No. 1 - Company entered into an agreement to purchase a plant for manufacture of sponge iron which was originally installe...
Tag this Judgment!