//
archives

manmohan singh

This tag is associated with 3 posts

whether the importing the goods of the same company and selling the same for lesser price than the price offered by the company authorized person amounts to infringement of trade ?= Accordingly, the prayers made in IA No.7774/2011 are allowed and the defendants, their agents, servants and all other acting for and on their behalf are restrained from importing, exporting and dealing in printers and their ink cartridges/toners bearing the trademark SAMSUNG and also restrained from using the mark SAMSUNG in any manner in respect of promotional activities including on website. As far as other products are concerned as prayed in the application, as clarified in the order dated 17.11.2011, the plaintiffs are at liberty to take an action in accordance with law. The defendants‟ application being I.A. No.10124/2011 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC is dismissed with cost of Rs.30,000/- which shall be deposited by the defendants with High Court Advocates Welfare Fund within four weeks from today.

CS (OS) No.1155/2011 Page 1 of 156 .* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + IA No.7774/2011 & IA No.10124/2011 in C.S. (OS). No.1155/2011 % Judgment decided on : 17.02.2012 Samsung Electronics Company Limited & Anr. …Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand with Mr. Dhruv Anand and Mr. Nischal Anand, Advs. Versus Kapil Wadhwa & … Continue reading

At the end of the extended period of time limit, if no decision is taken, sanction will be deemed to have been granted to the proposal for prosecution, and the prosecuting agency or the private complainant will proceed to file the chargesheet/complaint in the court to commence prosecution within 15 days of the expiry of the aforementioned time limit. =Whether a complaint can be filed by a citizen for prosecuting a public servant for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, `the 1988 Act’) and whether the authority competent to sanction prosecution of a public servant for offences under the 1988 Act is required to take an appropriate decision within the time specified in clause I(15) of the directions contained in paragraph 58 of the judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 and the guidelines issued by the

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1193 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 27535 of 2010) Dr. Subramanian Swamy … Appellant versus Dr. Manmohan Singh and another … Respondents J U D G M E N T G. S. Singhvi, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Whether … Continue reading

At the end of the extended period of time limit, if no decision is taken, sanction will be deemed to have been granted to the proposal for prosecution, and the prosecuting agency or the private complainant will proceed to file the chargesheet/complaint in the court to commence prosecution within 15 days of the expiry of the aforementioned time limit.

Image via Wikipedia 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1193 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 27535 of 2010)   Dr. Subramanian Swamy … Appellant   versus   Dr. Manmohan Singh and another … Respondents     J U D G M E N … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,891,076 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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

Join 1,906 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com