Reported in : LC2007(1)41; 2007(34)PTC49(Del)
pradeep nandrajog, j.1. plaintiff, a company registered under the companies act claims to be in the business of manufacture and sale of stationery items since 1957. it claims that with effect from the year 1961 it adopted the trade mark 'nataraj' with device of nataraj (idol) pertaining to stationery items sold by it. claiming user with effect from 22.7.1961, vide registration no. 225923, 260466, 283730, 400868 and 400869 registration is claimed in respect of pencils, sharpeners, pens, erasers, clips, staples, wire staples, stapling presses, paint brushes, adhesive material etc. under class 16 of trade and merchandise act 1958. plaintiff claims that it has advertised its product through print and television media. it claims popularity of the trade mark and states that the trade mark and the device has attained distinctiveness vis-a-vis the goods manufactured by the plaintiff.2. in respect of the trade dress where idol of nataraj is depicted, plaintiff claims copyright vide registration no. a-25427/79.3. stating that in december 1987 it learnt that the defendant had applied for registration of the trade mark 'natoraj' with device of nataraj under class 16 of the trade and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2006(92)DRJ525
.....insofar as the non-maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a registered partnership firm is concerned, it is a misconceived argument inasmuch as section 69 of the partnership act has no application to criminal cases. the kerala high court in the case of abdul gafoor v. abdurrahiman 1999 (2) klt 684 decided this issue, which was also a case under section 138 of the act.3. insofar as second contention is concerned, that raises disputed questions of fact. it is not denied that the cheque in question, which is dishonoured, was in the name of m/s. madan brick & co. under what circumstances this cheque was given would be a matter of evidence and it would be open to the petitioner to raise his defence in this respect.4. with these observations, this petition is dismissed. crl.m. no. 8881/2006 is also dismissed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2006(92)DRJ270
.....the accused on the same set of evidence which has been reevaluated and found sufficient by this court to convict the acquitted accused. this fact, according to counsel, must be taken into consideration and it weighs heavily in favour of the convict. he also submits that during all this period after he had been acquitted he has shown no propensities of committing crime. he also submits that while in jail during the trial the convict was rendering legal aid to the inmates of tihar. he has now married and is a father of a two years old girl. he further submits that the convict also has greater responsibilities on his shoulders due to the age of his parents and the illness of his father and is also to take care of a mentally challenged brother. he has referred to some judgments of the supreme court where in cases of rape and death the supreme court has held that those cases are not of 'rarest of rare' type. he, therefore, contends that this case does not come within the purview of rarest of the rare category of cases requiring the sentence of death.2. learned additional solicitor general on the other hand arguing for the state submits that this is a case in which death was.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2006(92)DRJ480
.....only from the employment exchange. no advertisement was issued, granting opportunity to outside candidates, to compete in the process, despite the fact that as per recruitment regulations, the posts were to be filled by direct recruitment. the other petitioner, dr. ramesh chander's application was considered, and he was called for interview, but not selected.3. the petitioners allege that the selection process is illegal and suffers from several infirmities. as per the rules the appointment is through direct recruitment. however, no advertisement or publicity through newspapers etc was given to enable outsiders to apply for the posts. this violated articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of india. it is alleged that requisition was only sought from the employment exchange. it is alleged that the list of those considered and selected clearly shows candidates who directly applied, without sponsorship by the employment exchange, were considered. yet, applications of petitioners were refused on grounds of not being recommended by the employment exchange. it is also alleged that petitioner nos. 1 & 2 (in dr. gursharan singh's petition) too were registered with the employment exchange.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2007]138CompCas935(Delhi); (2007)6CompLJ465(Del); [2007]75SCL1(Delhi)
.....that the 2nd and 3rd respondent are being shown as shareholders in respect of 4800 shares and they are also shown as directors notwithstanding the fact that these shares had been transferred to the petitioner in 1997 and both the 2nd and 3rd respondents had resigned as directors and the 1st and 2nd petitioners have been appointed as directors. this would indicate that the substantial manipulation of the records of the company. with these allegations, the petitioners have sought for rectification of the register of members of the company by inserting the name of the 1st petitioner as shareholder in respect of the impugned 2500 shares and also the name of the 2nd petitioner in respect of 2300 shares impugned in the petition. they have also sought for removing 2nd and 3rd respondent and appointment of 1st and 2nd petitioners of their nominees as directors. they have also sought for a declaration that the purported transfer of the license in favor of the 6th respondent be declared as null and void.3. in so far as cp no. 54 of 2005 (durga builders) is concerned the allegations of the petitioners are: this company, is engaged in the business of development of land for purposes of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2009(93)DRJ470
.....or the extent of misuse of the property and consequently the quantum of the damages to be paid by the petitioner is a disputed question of fact which would require investigation and determination on the basis of evidence which can be lead only in properly instituted civil suit.14. under the master plan 2001 the petitioner secured sanction of the respondent no. 2 by letter dated 1.8.1996 to develop the plot, but not amounting to group housing. as per clause 12 of the sanction letter issued by the respondent no. 2, the petitioner had to get the plans approved separately under the terms of lease from the lesser, i.e. l & do. clause 14 of the said letter also clearly stated that the 'sanction will be void ab initio if auxiliary conditions mentioned above are not complied.' the petitioner never approached the l & do for the approval. the letter and the sanction issued by the respondent no. 2 was thereforee void ab initio. it is submitted that the development which undertaken by the petitioner was illegal and without sanction.15. the petitioner applied for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold right by application no. 2041 dated 24.11.1999 under the conversion policy......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 136(2007)DLT189; 2006(92)DRJ461
.....the rates as per the circular of 1996 and in all other cases reimbursement had only been done when ordered by the court. this is hardly a satisfactory state of affairs. respondents are required to be more responsive and cannot in a mechanical manner deprive an employee of the legitimate reimbursement, especially on account of their own failure in not revising the rates. in view of the foregoing discussion and the judicial pronouncements as noted above, the petitioner is entitled to full reimbursement of the expenses incurred at the escorts heart institute and research centre, new delhi where he was duly referred for specialised treatment by the respondents after according permission. escorts heart institute & research centre being a recognised purpose, the petitioner is entitled to be reimbursed the actual expenses, as incurred. a writ of mandamus shall issue to the respondents, who shall pay rs. 70,115.85 to the petitioner within four weeks from today, together with costs assessed at rs. 1,500/-.13. again in prithvi nath chopra v. union of india 2004 iii ad (del) 569, this court held as follows:24. in v.k. gupta's case (supra), it has further been noticed that the rates.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2007Ker102; 2006(4)KLT1006
.....any authorities for substantiating such a stand. we are not inclined to accept that contention as according to us it is basically unsustainable. rule 8 of order xxxiii of the code of civil procedure provides that when an application filed under order xxxiii rule 1 is granted, the suit shall be numbered and registered, and it shall be deemed the plaint in the suit, and the suit shall proceed in all other respects as a suit instituted in the ordinary manner. rule 15-a of order xxxiii provides that when an application is rejected under rule 5 or refused under rule 7, the court may grant time for payment of the court fee and upon such payment, the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the application for permission to sue as an indigent person was presented.3. section 3 of the limitation act makes it clear that for the purposes of the limitation act, a suit is deemed as instituted, in the case of a pauper, when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made. going by rules 8 and 15-a of order xxxiii of the code of civil procedure and also section 3 of the limitation act, the only interpretation that is possible appears to be that the suit shall.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2007)211CTR(Ker)495
.....even though the petitioner claimed benefit of exemption with reference to rule 6dd(l) of the income-tax rules, petitioner could not establish the facts required to grant benefit of exemption. thereafter the disallowance of exemption was contested in two rounds of statutory appeals but confirmed by an authorities including the tribunal. in order to grant exemption of expenditure over rs. 10,000, section 40a(3) requires that such payments should be made through account payee cheques or demand drafts. however, rule 6dd(j) during relevant year provided for certain exception to this provision. the provision relied on by the petitioner, namely, sub-rule q) of rule 6dd is extracted here under for easy reference:cases and circumstances in which payment in a sum exceeding ten thousand rupees may be made otherwise than by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft.-no disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40a shall be made where any payment in a sum exceeding, ten thousand rupees is made otherwise than by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or by crossed bank draft in the cases and circumstances specified hereunder, namely(j) in any other case, where the assessee.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2007)7VST621(Ker)
.....goods, namely, bullion was delivered to the exporters against receipt of substantial amount, the ultimate sale price is fixed later and only after fixing the price, invoice is raised, which happened in the subsequent year. we are unable to accept this contention because by delivery of goods against substantial payment received, the bank has in fact effected 'sale' as defined under section 2(xxi) of the kerala general sales tax act, 1963. in fact, the purchasers are exporters and on taking delivery of the goods from the petitioners, the exporters were free to manufacture ornaments from the bullion purchased and could export/sell the same. therefore, delivery of goods is pursuant to contract of sale and all what is left is only finalisation of price and raising of final invoice. since the sale takes place on delivery of goods under terms of contract, the transaction is rightly assessed in the year in which delivery was given. these tax revision petitions are therefore dismissed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT