//
archives

advertising

This tag is associated with 14 posts

PIL- using public funds for advertising in a manner so as to project the personalities, parties or particular governments and for laying down binding guidelines – DAVP guidelines not suitable to deal with situation – Apex court appointed a committee to that effect = Common Cause …. Petitioner (s) Versus Union of India …. Respondent(s)= 2014 ( April.Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41450

PIL- using  public  funds  for  advertising  in  a manner  so  as  to  project  the  personalities,   parties   or   particular governments and for laying down binding guidelines – DAVP guidelines not suitable to deal with situation – Apex court appointed a committee to that effect =  These petitions have  been  brought  as  a  class  action  by  certain  registered societies viz., Common Cause  and … Continue reading

Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’).=The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhiwadi had levied penalty in exercise of his powers under Section 78(5) of the Act against the owner of the vehicle who was carrying certain goods of the assessee.- “If one reads sub-section (5) of Section 78 in its entirety with Rule 53 of the 1995 Rules, it is clear that penalty was liable to be imposed for importation of any taxable goods for sale without furnishing a declaration in Form ST 18A completely filled in all respects. The duty to fill and furnish the said Form is imposed on the purchasing dealer. Therefore, Section 78(5) as it stood prior to 22.3.02 imposed penalty if possession or movement of goods took place inter alia in breach of Section 78(2)(a) on “the person in-charge”, which included the owner. In this connection it may be noted that sub- section (5) comes after sub-section 4(c) which talks about release of the goods to “the owner of the goods” on his giving of adequate security. It is the owner (importer) who has to fill in the Form ST 18A. It is the owner who is entitled to seek release under Section 78(4) on giving security. It is the owner who is entitled to hearing under Section 78(5) and, therefore, the expression “person in-charge of the goods” under Section 78(5) would include the owner. Moreover, under Section 78(2) the words used are “person in-charge of a vehicle or carrier of goods in movement” whereas the words in Section 78(5) which comes after sub-section (4) refers to “person in-charge of the goods”. The words “in movement” do not find place in Section 78(5) and therefore the expression “person in charge of goods” under Section 78(5) was wider than the expression “person in charge of goods in movement” under Section 78(2)(a). Consequently, the expression “person in-charge of the goods” under Section 78(5) who is given an opportunity of being heard in the enquiry would include the “owner of the goods”.= “person in-charge of the goods” under the old Section 78(5) is substituted by the words “the owner of the goods or a person authorized in writing by such owner or person in-charge of the goods”.- Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the order passed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhiwadi ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. M/S PAREKH ENTERPRISES .

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40817     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CIVIL APPEAL NO.8216 OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.4194 OF 2010)   ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER APPELLANT(S)   VERSUS   M/S PAREKH ENTERPRISES RESPONDENT(S)   O R D E R       1. Leave granted.   2. This … Continue reading

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE – QUACK DOCTOR = According to the appellant, she came across an advertisement published in a newspaper ‘Jan Satta’ dated 8.8.1993 offering treatment of the patients having fits with Ayurvedi medicine by Dr. R.K. Gupta­ respondent No.1. The advertisement impressed the appellant as the respondent No.1 claimed total cure of fits. The appellant wrote a detailed letter to respondent No.1 about her son’s fits during high fever. In response, respondent No.1 sent a letter dated 23rd November, 1993 assuring that he had specialised treatment for the problem of Prashant by Ayurvedic medicines. despite medicines being given regularly the condition of Prashant started deteriorating day by day and the fits which were occasional and occurred only during the high fever, started occurring even without fever. = he is a quack and guilty of medical negligence, criminal negligence and breach of duty as he was playing with the lives of innocent people without understanding the disease. He was prescribing Allopathic medicines, for which he was not competent to prescribe. It was, inter alia, prayed that direction be issued to respondents to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as compensation; to refund the charges paid by the appellant to the respondents and to reimburse the expenses incurred by the appellant on travelling to Rishikesh and a sum of Rs.10 lakhs for undergoing termination of pregnancy. = The National Commission has already held that respondent No.1 was guilty of unfair trade practice and adopted unfair method and deceptive practice by making false statement orally as well as in writing. In view of the aforesaid finding, we hold that both Prashant and the appellant suffered physical and mental injury due to the misleading advertisement, unfair trade practice and negligence of the respondents. The appellant and Prashant thus are entitled for an enhanced compensation for the injury suffered by them. Further, we find no reason given by the National Commission for deducting 50% of the compensation amount and to deposit the same with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the Commission. 16. We, accordingly, set aside that part of the order passed by the National Commission and enhance the amount of compensation at Rs.15 lakhs for payment in favour of the appellant with a direction to the respondents to pay the amount to the appellant within three months. The appeal is allowed but there shall be no separate order as to costs.

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8660 OF 2009 BHANWAR KANWAR …. APPELLANT VERSUS R.K. GUPTA & ANR.  ….RESPONDENTS J UD G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. This   appeal   has   been   preferred   by   the complainant­appellant against the order and judgment dated   29th  January,   2009   passed   by   the   National Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   New   Delhi (hereinafter   referred … Continue reading

since introduced Section 145-A to the Income Tax Act. Clause(b) thereof provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, interest received by an assessee on compensation or on enhanced compensation, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the income of the year in which it is received.

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P. No.6425 of 2012                                                   DATED:09-03-2012 Between: Sannapureddy Pakkeera Reddy                         …  Petitioner   And   The Special Deputy Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Unit – I (L.A.), Kadapa and another.             … Respondents                     … Continue reading

The profession of lawyer and that of a doctor stand on equal footing as both are professionals and so is the lawyer’s office and that of doctor’s clinic/dispensary or even a pathology lab. The building in question is recognized by the respondents themselves partial as residential in nature, therefore the portion of the doctor’s clinic/dispensary or lab situate therein would be a part of the residential premises. The area has also been notified by the Jhansi Development Authority as residential in nature. In short, the clinic/dispensary or laboratory is being run from a residential area and the portion would not be covered by commercial establishment or shop within the meaning of Sub-section (4) and 16 of Section 2 of the Adhiniyam and its market value is not determinable as a commercial building as provided under Rule 2 (d) of the Rules. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I hold that the authorities below have erred in treating the ground floor portion of the building in question to be commercial in nature for the reason that at one point of time a doctor’s clinic or a pathology lab was being run from there. It is a part of a residential building.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD  A F R Writ Petition No. 16843 of 2011 Satya Prakash Singh and another Petitioners Vs. State of U.P., and Others Respondents Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Petitioners are purchasers of two storied building vide registered sale deed dated 16.2.2009 for a sale consideration of Rs. 40 lacs, but for the … Continue reading

Work damage due to trouble of Heavy Earthmoving Machine (Hydraulic Excavator) used for mining activity in granite mines. Under the warranty attached to the sale of the machines, the opposite party had undertaken to supply spare parts worth upto Rupees one lac for each machine. From the material brought on record, we have reasons to believe that complainants must have incurred expenditure on purchase of spare parts from the open market, besides the spare parts supplied by the opposite party worth not less than Rupees. one lac for each machine. We therefore consider it appropriate to grant a sum of rupees one lac towards the cost of spare parts purchased by the complainant from the open market in respect of each of the four machines. 50. In view of our above discussions we hold that the complaints filed by the complainants deserve to be allowed partly in the following manner: (i) In Consumer Complaint No. 50 of 2000 relating to equipment serial number G 10258 and G 10261, the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 7.00 lacs (i.e. Rs. 2.00 lacs towards the loss of business in respect of equipment number G 10258 and Rs. 3.00 lacs in respect of equipment No. G 10261) and a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac towards the cost of spare parts in respect of each of the two machines; (ii) In Consumer Complaint No. 51 of 2000 relating to equipment serial number G 10260, the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3.00lacs i.e. Rs. 2.00 lacs towards the loss of business and Rs. 1.00 lac towards the cost of spare parts; (iii) In Consumer Complaint No. 61 of 2000 relating to equipment serial number G 10257, the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3.00 lacsi.e. Rs. 2.00 lacs towards the loss of business and Rs. 1.00 lac towards the cost of spare parts. 51. Since the said amount of claim of the complainant was not settled/paid by the opposite party within a reasonable time even after legal notice, we propose to further compensate the complainants by awarding interest @ 9% per annum on the above amounts with effect from the date of filing of the complaint till payment. 52 In the result, we partly allow the three complaints and direct the opposite party as under: (i) To pay a sum of Rs. 7.00 lacs to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of the complaint till payment in Consumer Complaint No. 50 of 2000; (ii) To pay a sum of Rs. 3.00 lacs to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum per annum with effect from the date of the complaint till payment in Consumer Complaint No. 51 of 2000; (iii) To pay a sum of Rs. 3.00 lacs to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum per annum with effect from the date of the complaint till payment in Consumer Complaint No. 61 of 2000; 53. The opposite party is called upon to make the payment of the awarded amount to the complainants within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, failing which the rate of interest shall stand enhanced to 12% per annum with effect from the date of default. 54. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own cost.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 50 OF 2000 K. Yusuf Basha 4/59, Bharathi Street, Swarnapuri, Salem – 4                                                            …      Complainant   Versus Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., Regional Office Unity Buildings Vth Floor, J.C. Road, Bangalore – 560 002.                                        …      Opposite Party   ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 51 OF 2000 K. Shahnawaz 4/59, Bharathi Street, Swarnapuri, Salem – 4                                                            …      Complainant   Versus Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., Regional Office … Continue reading

Failure to pay interest while refunding deposited amount =“Resultantly, we direct that on the amount deposited by the complainants till the date of filing the complaint the total interest accrued i.e. RS.32,49,175/- be paid to the complainants alongwith an interest @ 18% per annum for the period of the pendency of the complaint till the actual realization of the amount. The complainants are also entitled to receive from the respondent Rs.50,000/- as mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. The payment of the abovementioned entire amount be made within 2 months.”

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   FIRST APPEAL NO. 42  OF 2012 With I.A. Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 (Against the order dated 14.10.2011 in Complaint No.25/2007 of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh) Kanpur Development Authority Motijheel Kanpur Through its Vice Chairman                                                                                       ……….Appellant Versus   1). Shri Sheo Prakash Gupta S/o Late Nanhe Lal Gupta   2). Shri Sanjai Gupta S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta   Directors of M/s. Sanskriti Real Estate Pvt Ltd. … Continue reading

Australian Designs Office Design found to be new and distinctive. Examination completed and s. 67 Certificate of Examination to be issued. Colgate-Palmolive Company (“the Owner”) filed design application 13749/2008 , claiming a priority date of 15 February 2008. This resulted in design registration 323015 (“the Registered Design”). The product to which the Registered Design relates is described as “Set of bristles for a toothbrush”. The application was accompanied by a request for examination of the design after registration. The representations shown as figures 1, 2 and 5 in the Register of Designs

  Colgate-Palmolive Company [2011] ADO 1 (3 February 2011)   Last Updated: 25 February 2011 DESIGNS ACT 2003 DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE REGISTRAR OF DESIGNS, WITH REASONS   Re: Design Registration Nos. 323015 in the name of Colgate-Palmolive Company Inc.   DELEGATE: T. E. Williams REPRESENTATION: Owner : written submissions by Tracey Webb … Continue reading

Their lordships of Apex court set aside the lower court orders “Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non-interference by the Court would result in “irreparable injury” to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely, one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages.” In a suit for specific performance of contract of Agencies in alter native for damages, no interim injunction

   Reportable   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4313-4314 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 34627-34628 OF 2010) M/s Best Sellers Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant Versus M/s Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. & Ors. … Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No. 4315 OF 2012 (Arising out … Continue reading

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to recover the amount of placement fees which the respondent has failed to pay. Accordingly, we allow the petition and hold that the petitioner is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs. 39,37,500/- alongwith pendentilite interest and future interest @ 12% per annum from the respondent. -Accordingly, we allow the petition and hold that the petitioner is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs. 93,75,000/- alongwith pendentilite interest and future interest @ 12% per annum from the respondent. 19. In the facts and circumstances of these cases, there shall be no order with no costs

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL   NEW DELHIDated 10th May, 2012PETITION No. 389(c) of 2011Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd. …PetitionerVsTriveni Media Ltd. …RespondentPetition No.390(C) of 2011Hathway Bhaskar Multinet Pvt. Ltd. Anr. …PetitionersVs.Triven Media Ltd. …RespondentPetition No.391(C) of 2011Gujarat Telenik Pvt. Limited …PetitionerVs.Triveni Media Ltd. …RespondentBEFORE:HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.B. SINHA, CHAIRPERSONHON’BLE MR. P.K. RASTOGI,MEMBERFor Petitioner : … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,860,229 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,903 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com