This tag is associated with 61 posts

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD- The appellant’s mark is Magic Laxmanrekha which is how all along he has been using the mark. The respondent’s mark as directed for registration is KRAZYLINES LAXMANREKHA all the words in the same line. Krazylines per se has been in the market for long. Even if the application for this mark is subsequent to the appellants mark, in view of the fact that for a long time, the respondent’s carton and label have admittedly shown not only the word KRAZYLINES but also the Slogan “Draw a Laxmanrekha,” the conditions imposed by the Registrar should be sufficient to protect public interest. 15. So for the above reasons, we think this is a case where we must justifiably exercise our discretion in favour of the respondent. The adoption is not dishonest as the respondent has been using the Slogan containing the word LAXMANREKHA for a long time. It is possible that the appellant was inspired to adopt the name from the Slogan. At the same time, we have also given our reason why we do not think there was any dishonesty or fraudulent conduct on the part of the appellant in adopting Magic Lines Laxman Rekha. So the order does not warrant interference. For all the reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018 CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT MUMBAI M.P. NOS.57/2004, 112/2006, 286/2010 & 293/2010 IN TA/62/2003/TM/MUM AND TA/62/2003/TM/MUM AND M.P. NOS.285/2010 &  291/2010 IN OA/20/2004/TM/MUM AND OA/20/2004/TM/MUM  FRIDAY, THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012   Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan                                    … Chairman       … Continue reading

1993 AIR SC 1361, it has been held that learned Sessions Judge’s powers under section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. while hearing the revision, are equivalent to that of High Court and anyone cannot avail two opportunities of filing revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C.. When once his revision was found unsubstantial by the learned Sessions Judge under section 397 (1) Cr.P.C., then the remedy under section 482 Cr.P.C. is barred and he cannot file this petition. 5. So in view of the above, this petition is legally barred and is not maintainable under section 482 Cr.P.C..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 676 of 2007 Mohd. Alim. ………. Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ………. Respondents. Present : Mr. R.K.S. Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. By way of this criminal … Continue reading

Apex court set aside the Bombay High court orders=the Bombay High Court holding that the entire amount received by an assessee on sale of the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (for short `the DEPB’) represents profit on transfer of DEPB under Section 28(iiid) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `the Act’) for the purpose of the computation of deduction in respect of profits retained for export business under Section 80HHC of the Act. =It is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation of a taxing statute that a subject will be liable to tax and will be entitled to exemption from tax according to the strict language of the taxing statute and if as per the words used in explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC read with the words used in clauses (iiid) and (iiie) of Section 28, the assessee was entitled to a deduction under Section 80HHC on export profits, the benefit of such deduction cannot be denied to the assessee. 23. The impugned judgment and orders of the Bombay High Court are accordingly set-aside. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated in this judgment. The Assessing Officer is directed to compute the deduction

Reportable   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 1699 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 26558 OF 2010)   M/s Topman Exports … Appellant   Versus   Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai … Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL No. 1700 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) … Continue reading

no arrest during investigation as it is an out come of civil case and chances of compromise= since the present crime arose out of some civil disputes between the parties and there is every possibility of settlement between the parties, the respondent police are hereby directed to complete the investigation of the case without making arrest of the petitioner.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.108 of 2012   ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in F.I.R.No.24 of 2009 of Wanaparthy Rural Police Station, Mahboobnagar District. Heard. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 420, … Continue reading

No arrest of accused in matrimonial cases for the welfare of the family=since the offences arose out of matrimonial disputes, this Court is of the view that if the petitioners are arrested, it may cause prejudice in case there is any proposal for settlement between the parties in future.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICERAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.256 OF 2012   ORDER:     The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 approached this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.3 of 2011 of CID Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC.   Heard.   … Continue reading

cancellation of bail=The only other ground on which the petitioner claims cancellation of bail is that there is life threat to him. The petitioner is stated to have given a report in Rayadurgam Police Station on an incident in which some persons attempted to trespass into his house. Even as per the petitioner’s case, the said attempt was not accomplished. Even as per the petitioner, A-3 was not one of such persons who attempted to trespass into his house. He claims that his enquiries revealed that those persons were men of A-3 and they came there to conduct rekki of his house. The petitioner did not give details of the alleged enquiries made by himself to find out the reason why some persons attempted to trespass into his house. He did not also state as to details of those persons, except alleging that they were men of A-3. It is a vague and bald allegation. There is no basis to conclude that the alleged persons who attempted to trespass into his house were connected to A-3. It is nothing but the petitioner’s assumption based on no ground. It is not the petitioner’s case that any persons hurled any threats on him or any persons muchless A-3 attempted on his life. 8) The Additional Public Prosecutor stated that after receipt of report from the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner of Police gave necessary instructions to the Inspector of Police, Rayadurgam Police Station and that now a police beat point is located at the petitioner’s house and that day patrolling as well as night patrolling by the police in the locality of petitioner’s house is increased and that steps have been started for opening rowdy sheets on all the accused including 2nd respondent/A-3 in this crime. In that view of the matter, the police have taken appropriate steps on the apprehensions of the petitioner though there is no basis for such apprehensions of the petitioner. Therefore, this is not a fit case for cancelling bail granted to the 2nd respondent/A-3 by this Court earlier, exercising the power either under Section 482 Cr.P.C or under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. 9) Hence, the petition is dismissed.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5699 of 2011 16-08-2011 E.Sanjeeva Reddy The State of A.P, rep. by Public Prosecutor and another Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Gandra Mohan Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor ORDER : The petitioner is witness No.11 in Crime No.168/2011 of Chandanagar Police Station of Cyberabad … Continue reading

child custody =In normal course, natural parents cannot be deprived of visiting rights of their child. But, in the instant case, the approach of the respondents to have the custody of the minor ward is something different from that of a normal parents’ approach. The child was born on 25.04.2001. It is the case of the respondents that they left the child with the petitioners in the year 2004. But, the same is denied specifically by the petitioners and it is the case of the petitioners that on the 9th day after the birth, the minor ward was given to them and since then she is with them. Practically, the child has grown with the petitioners and is treating them as natural parents. Instead of seeking custody of their child through the competent court of law, it is clear that respondents made a futile attempt to have the custody forcibly, by making false allegations of kidnap and demand of money by the petitioners and obtained search warrant. Pursuant to such warrant, not only search was made in the house of the petitioners, but also in the School of the minor ward and she was taken by the Police from the School to the learned Magistrate. It appears, after enquiring the wishes of the child and her grandparents, petition was closed. Thereafter, the said order was also confirmed in Criminal Revision Case filed by the respondents referred hereinabove. Even thereafter, when the respondents filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus before this court, the same too ended in dismissal. In view of such steps taken against the petitioners and the minor ward, it appears, a sort of fear is developed in her mind and thereby she is even refusing to spare any time with them. Such attitude of the child was clearly discernible when she was examined by this court. When her wishes were enquired, she started crying inconsolably. Therefore, it cannot be said that she was tutored by the petitioners herein not to go with the respondents. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that allowing visiting rights of the minor ward by the respondents, as ordered by the court below, will definitely have an adverse impact on the welfare of the minor ward and therefore I hold that the respondents are not entitled for any visiting rights of the minor ward unless a congenial atmosphere is developed.

  HON’BLEMR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1681 of 2011 16.12.2011 Mohd. Haleem @ Sajid and another Dr.Shafiuddin Ali Ahmed and another Counsel for the petitioner:Sri Mirza Safiulla Baig Counsel for respondents: Sri P. Keshava Rao Order: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the … Continue reading

Benefit of difference in age should be given to the accused for offences u/ss 363, 366, 376 IPC/Appeal allowed.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD  RESERVED AFR Criminal Appeal No. 5029 of 2005 Raj Kumar Shukla ………………………………….Appellant Versus State of U.P. ………………………………………..Respondent Connected with Criminal Revision No. 723 of 2006 Sarju Prasad Mishra……………………………………….Revisionist Versus State of U.P. and another………………………………Respondents. Hon Vinod Prasad, J Appellant Raj Kumar Shukla, in Criminal Appeal No. 5029 of 2005, … Continue reading

the petitioners who filed the complaints before the District Forum, are agriculturists and their land is situated in village Nagamtha. It is the contention of the complainants that the representative of the respondent company at Shrirampur, approached them and suggested to participate in their seed production programme for JRO-524 variety Jute crop during kharif season. The respondent was to arrange at their expense all the operations such as land preparation, sowing, manuring, plant protection, harvesting etc. The complainants / petitioners were assured a minimum procurement price of Rs.1,000/- per quintal of seed produced. The average yield assured by the respondent company by using JRO-524 variety seed supplied by them was 8 to 10 quintal per acre. The petitioners participated in the seed production programme for a total area of 25 acre and accordingly, the name of the petitioner no. 1 was registered under the programme with the respondent company. The petitioners purchased 21 kg. of the said variety of seeds @Rs.20 per kg. from the respondent company. They also paid registration fee and the inspection fee as well as testing charges. Sowing of the seed, in question, was completed by the petitioners on 5.08.93 under the instructions and supervision of the respondents. In spite of the rainfall being good, it is the contention of the petitioners that the germination of the seeds in the field was not uniform. In fact, germination was very poor. He brought this to the notice of the respondents upon which their representative visited the land, but no action was taken. According to the petitioners, they received a copy of letter dated 9.9.1993 addressed by the respondents to the District Seed Certification Officer, Aurangabad informing that the area under jute cultivation by the petitioner is withdrawn from certification due to failure of the crop. The petitioners were required to replough the entire 25 acre to make it ready for the next Rabi season and in the circumstances, they suffered heavy loss and damages for which they approached the District Forum by filing a consumer complaint demanding compensation of Rs.4,47,544/-. = In the facts and circumstances of the case, the goods purchased were not for self-consumption, but ultimately were for resale, and primarily it was for commercial purpose, with a view to make profit. Nobody undertakes plantation of 1800 poplar trees for sale (resale) in full or part without the aim of earning – profit. Nobody takes up any such activity in 9 acres of irrigated land for self-employment. 14. In the aforementioned circumstances, in our view, the complainant will not fall within the definition of consumer as per law settled on subject by this Commission and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited earlier in view of which Consumer Fora would not have entertained this complaint. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, complaint is dismissed. 15. However, if the respondents / complainant chooses to file a suit for the relief claimed in these proceedings, he can do so according to law and, in such a case, he can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting proceedings under Consumer Protection Act while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute (supra).”

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION  NO. 3829 & 3829-A OF 2007 (From the order dated 06.07.2007 in Appeal No. 368 & 407/1999 of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad)   1.  Prithviraj Naryanrao Chavan, R/o Village Nagamthan, Tal. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad Maharashtra 2.  Pralhad Laxmanrao Chavan, R/o Village Nagamthan, Tal. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad Maharashtra                                             …      Petitioner (s) Versus The National Seeds Corporation Ltd., … Continue reading

The respondent/complainant had purchased 195 Kgs. of Lobia seeds from the petitioners/OPs in 2001 for total price of Rs.11,000/-. The seeds were sown in 24 acres of land. In the next three months, the crop had attained vigorous vegetative growth, but there was no pod formation. On a complaint by the respondent/complainant, the crop was inspected by officers of the State Agriculture Department as well as representative of Haryana, State Agriculture University, Hissar. The report of the latter shows that the entire crop was of fodder variety and not the (seed) vegetable variety of cowpea. Hence there was no pod formation.

Image via Wikipedia NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO. 3180 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 12.05.2011 in First Appeal No.2499 of 2003 of the State Commission, Haryana ) Bharat Seed Company Through its Proprietor Near Anand Cinema, Post Office Box No.104 & 52, Jodhpur– 342 001                                                                                                                                        ……….Petitioner Versus 1. Charanjit Singh S/o Shri Balwant Singh Residing at Dera Sacha Sauda, Begu Road, Sirsa 2. Vikas Traders, … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,922 hits



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

Join 1,907 other subscribers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com