Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005]123CompCas334(SC); 2005(30)PTC1(SC); (2004)5SCC257
1. The appellant sells tea under what it calls 'an umbrella trade mark' namely 'Tea City'. According to the appellant there are different kinds of tea which are sold under this umbrella trade mark with specific trade marks in respect of particular kinds of tea. One of the kinds of tea sold in this manner is 'Super Cup' which pertains to extra strong CTC Tea. The appellant claims that it has been selling such tea under the trade mark. 'Super Cup' since 1987-88 and had not only invested a large amount in advertising this particular product but had effected large sales as a result of which the appellant had built up a goodwill and reputation in respect of the name 'Super Cup' and that the customers had come to associate that mark with the appellant's extra strong CTC Tea.2. On the allegation that the respondent, also in the tea business, had wrongfully used the words 'Super Cup' in connection with the sale of its tea, the appellant filed proceedings before the High Court alleging passing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3797; 2004(3)AWC2178(SC); 2004(4)SCALE792; (2004)4SCC580
S.N. Variava, J.1. This Appeal is against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 18th February, 1998. The Appellants' Writ Petition challenging Orders dated 10th December, 1997, 11th December, 1997 and 19th December, 1997 has been dismissed.2. These Orders have been issued under the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules framed thereunder. Section 2(a) of the Act defines 'Controller' as the Controller of Molasses. Section 2(d) defines 'Molasses' as the heavy, dark coloured viscous liquid produced in the final stage of manufacture of sugar by vacuum pan, from sugarcane or gur, when the liquid as such or in any form or admixture contains sugar. Section 2(h) defines 'Sugar Factory' or 'Factory' as any premises wherein twenty or more workers are working and in which a manufacturing process connected with production of sugar by means of vacuum pan is being carried on or is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2004(102)FLR226]; 2004(2)JKJ25[SC]; JT2004(Suppl1)SC338; 2004(5)SCALE90; (2004)6SCC786; 2004(3)SLJ159(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.INTRODUCTION: 1. These six appeals involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.BACKGROUND FACTS:2. Under the Health Ministry of the State of Jammu and Kashmir there are two different departments, medical health and medical education. The employees working in those departments are borne on separate cadres. The Respondents 3 to 10 before the High Court were appointed as ad hoc lecturers in medicine in the medical education department by the State of Jammu and Kashmir. No recommendation of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission was obtained therefore. The said ad hoc appointments were set aside by this court in Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narender Mohan and Ors. reported in : (1994)ILLJ780SC wherein the State was directed to refer the vacancies to the Commission and make appointments in terms of the recommendations made by it in that behalf. Pursuant thereto and in furt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(10)SCALE116; (2004)7SCC388
S.N. Variava and; H.K. Sema, JJ.1. This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court dated 20-8-1997.2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:The appellant was running a poultry farm on land admeasuring approximately 10,000 sq feet in Village Bhatinda. On 6-4-1992 a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published proposing to acquire, amongst others, the land of the appellant. Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was invoked and no-objections were invited under Section 5. The notification under Section 6 was issued on 8-4-1992. The appellant was then given a notice to vacate on 17-4-1993 and possession was taken on 21-4-1993.3. The Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry by his report assessed the loss to the appellant. The report of the Deputy Director was reconsidered by the Director of Animal Husbandry who reassessed the loss caused to the appellant by his having to close down his poultry business at such short notice. Based on the reports and other materia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(4)AWC3539(SC); [2004(101)FLR993]; [2004(3)JCR251(SC)]; JT2004(5)SC345; 2005(1)KarLJ177; 2004(4)SCALE767; (2004)6SCC118; 2004(3)SLJ168(SC); (2004)3UPLBEC2256
V.N. Khare, C.J.1. Union of India herein is in appeal before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.5765 of 2001 whereby the High Court has affirmed the order dated 8.2.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in O.A. No.1020 of 1999.2. The first respondent herein was a member of the Indian Police Service (IPS) of 1963 batch. He although was said to be one of the senior-most officers for the purpose of consideration of his claim for promotion to the post of Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), ignoring his case, Shri R.K. Raghavan, Respondent No.6 herein was appointed therein. Questioning the said appointment as also the procedure adopted by the Committee being violative of the directions of this Court for appointment of Director, CBI in Vineet Narain and Ors. vs . Union of India Anr. : 1998CriLJ1208 , the first respondent filed an original applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3683; JT2004(Suppl1)SC591; 2004(3)MPHT227; 2004MPLJ126(SC); 2004(4)SCALE808; (2004)4SCC781; 2004(2)LC1261(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted in all the three SLPs.2. The appellants are the landlords and the three respondents in the three appeals are three tenants in three shop-premises belonging to the appellants. Proceedings for eviction of the tenant-respondents were initiated by the landlord-appellants on the ground available under Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, hereinafter, the Act, for short, alleging the bona fide requirement of the landlords for the purpose of re-building the shops. The suit was decreed. As required by Section 18 of the Act, the Court appointed the time for vacating of the premises by the tenants accompanied by direction for reoccupation by the tenants after the premises have been rebuilt.3. On 13.11.00 the tenants vacated the premises and delivered possession to the landlords. One year's time was allowed to the landlords for completing the rebuilding and offering the premises for reoccupation by the tenants. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(3)AWC2218(SC); JT2004(Suppl1)SC497; 2004(4)SCALE862
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. In the States of Madhya Pradesh, kerosene was being distributed and made available for sale to consumers through public distribution system and by appointing fair price shops and retailers. By executive instructions, the State of Madhya Pradesh evolved a system called rounding off of the price in the name of securing distribution of kerosene at uniform prices. The effect of the system was that the prices for sale by the wholesalers and the retailers were so strategically appointed as to generate a margin which was collected by Collectors in several districts and the Director of Civil Supplies at the State level. Such fixation of prices, based on rounding off, was challenged by filing writ petitions in the High Court which were dismissed. The matter came up in appeals by special leave before this Court. This Court allowed the appeals. The judgment of the High Court was set, aside and the system of founding off of the prices so as to build up funds available with the D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN155; JT2004(Suppl1)SC62; (2004)138PLR316; 2004(4)SCALE787; (2004)12SCC516
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The appellant's father was allotted a plot measuring 763 sq. yards in Sector 7-C, Chandigarh by the Chandigarh Administration by means of an auction sale and a deed of conveyance was executed on 13.10.1970, Subsequently, the site was transferred in favour of the appellant. A showroom was constructed on the site and in the year 1974, the building was let out to Allahabad Bank. Though it is claimed that the Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh gave consent for such letting, no material has been placed before the Court in support of this version.3. In view of the infringement of the conditions of sale read with the Rules, namely, Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, the Estate Officer by an order dated 25.11.1980 resumed the site on the ground of misuser and also forfeited 10% of the cost of site. This was done after issuing show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing to the appellant, The power of resumption is conferred by Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3854; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)815; 2004(3)AWC2180(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN175; 2004(3)CTC278; 2004(6)KarLJ187; (2004)3MLJ181(SC); 2004(4)SCALE811; (2004)5SCC88
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. Tanabai, the respondent herein, is the daughter of late Nivriti Vithoba Laad Laad. Nivriti Vithoba Laad owned and possessed land survey No. 48/1 measuring 14 acres 15 guntas in the village Ravatagaon. It appears that Nivriti Vithoba Laad executed an agreement to sell the said agricultural land in favour of the defendants and also delivered possession thereof to the prospective vendees. Nivriti Vithoba Laad died. The plaintiff, Tanabai is the sole legal heir of Nivriti Vithoba Laad. On 22.11.1978 Tanabai filed a suit for declaring the agreement dated 4.4.1967 as null and void and seeking recovery of possession over the land from the defendants. The suit was contested by the defendants submitting that the agreement was valid and binding on the plaintiff; that the defendants were in possession of the property under the agreement and entitled to protect their possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act; and that they had also perfected the title by adve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC2258; JT2004(Suppl1)SC275; RLW2004(2)SC269; 2004(5)SCALE27; (2004)5SCC409; 2004(2)LC1307(SC)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. The question raised in these civil appeals is - whether in counting 'the whole number of members of the municipal board' in terms of rule 3(9) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No-Confidence against Chairman/Vice-Chairman) Rules 1974, nominated members have to be taken into consideration? 2. For sake of convenience, we refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No.6133 of 2002. 3. On 19.8.2000, elections were held for the Municipal Board, Sanchar, district Jalore. The appellant Ramesh Mehta was elected as Chairperson of the Municipal Board. On 24.10.2000, the State Government nominated two members on the Board. On 6.10.2001, the total number of members of the municipal board consisted of 20 elected members, 2 nominated members and one MLA (Ex-officio). Thus, the total number of members on 6.10.2001 were 23. On that day, the no confidence motion was moved against the Chairperson, in which 15 members voted for the motion. The motion was conducted by the SDO, Sanchar ...
Tag this Judgment!