M/s. R.K. Associates V. Channapa and Others
|

M/s. R.K. Associates V. Channapa and Others

M/s. R.K. Associates V. Channapa and Others[1] Facts In this case, Clause 13 of the deed stated that the plaintiff was at liberty to sue for specific performance or for damages or for any other reliefs that may be available to them. Clause 14, however, allowed any disputes or differences, between the parties arising out…

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority vs. Unity Infraproject Ltd.
|

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority vs. Unity Infraproject Ltd.

Citation: 2008(5)BomCR196 Facts On 20th July 2003, the Petitioner invited tenders for the construction of 1648 tenements for the rehabilitation of project affected households. This was a World Bank Project. The work was to be carried out in two phases. The two phase programme of work was to be in accordance with the availability of vacant…

Difference between Direct Attack & Collateral Attack
|

Difference between Direct Attack & Collateral Attack

In Navaneethammal vs. Ammakannammal and Ors.[1], the plaint included a claim which was prima facie untenable. However, such untenability of the claim was discovered only after the decision of the Federal Court. It is evident that the untenability of a claim is undoubtedly a reason for disallowing the same. However, if the Court happens to…

|

Vicco Laboratories, Bombay v. Hindustan Rimmer, Delhi

Vicco Laboratories, Bombay v. Hindustan Rimmer, Delhi AIR 1979 Delhi 114 Plaintiff was manufacturing and marketing since 1965 vanishing cream containing turmeric and sandal wood under the name of Vicco Turmeric Vanishing Cream. Plaintiff had been marketing the said cream in tubes in cartons. The carton and tubes had a distinctive get up and colour…

|

Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. Hind Cycles Limited

Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. Hind Cycles Limited (1973) ILR 1 Delhi 393 Appellant was a company incorporated in 1950. In 1938, a firm called Messrs Janki Dass & Co., began to import bicycles into India under the Trade Mark “EASTERN STAR”. In or about 1943, the said firm obtained trade mark registration in Class…

|

Rai Toys Industries and Ors. v. Munir Printing Press, Delhi

Rai Toys Industries and Ors. v. Munir Printing Press, Delhi 1982 PTC 85 Plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of Copyright in it’s Tambola tickets which were copied by the Defendant. The Plaintiff was also the registered owner of the Copyright. The Learned Single Judge granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the…

Difference between ‘Mortgage by Conditional Sale’ and ‘Sale with a condition of Re-transfer’

Difference between ‘Mortgage by Conditional Sale’ and ‘Sale with a condition of Re-transfer’

Mortgage by Conditional Sale: What it means Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides- (c) Mortgage by conditional sale.– Where, the mortgagor ostensibly sells the mortgaged property – on condition that on default of payment of the mortgage-money on a certain date the sale shall become absolute, or on condition that on…

Admissibility of Unregistered Document
|

Admissibility of Unregistered Document

Importance of Registration Registration of a document gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuates documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain…

|

Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v. Parul food Specialities Pvt. Ltd.

Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v. Parul food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (48) PTC 235 (Del.) (DB) Appellant was the proprietor of a label mark ‘KRISHNA’ having pictorial reflection of Lord Krishna standing on a lotus flower for dairy products. Appellant was also the registered proprietor of the word ‘KRISHNA’ written in a unique…

| |

Major (Retired) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics

Major (Retired) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics Before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi FAO(OS) No. 16 of 2014 The present Appeal was filed by the Appellants as the Appellant’s application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Judgment on admission) was dismissed by the…

|

South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. General Mills Marketing Inc.

South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. General Mills Marketing Inc. Before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi FAO(OS) No. 389/2014 Decided On: 13.10.2014 Respondent was the proprietor of the mark ‘HAAGEN – DAZS’ for ice cream claiming use since 2007 in India. Appellant was using mark ‘D’DAAZS’. The use of both the parties…