Pandiyan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. v. N. Balakrishnan (2007) 9 SCC 755 Key Words: shall, directory, mandatory, substantive, procedural, prejudice, non-compliance Facts: Respondent herein was employed as a helper of Appellant. A criminal complaint was lodged against him for alleged commission of theft. A disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against him. In the disciplinary proceeding, he…
State Bank of Patiala & Ors. vs. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364 Key Words: non-compliance, substantial compliance, prejudice, substantive, procedural Facts: A disciplinary enquiry was held against the respondent in respect of certain charges. At the conclusion of the enquiry, a report was submitted by the enquiry officer holding both the charges established. The…
May George vs. Special Tahsildar & Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 98 Key Words: mandatory, directory, non-compliance, object and purpose, shall, prejudice, legislative intent Facts The case of the appellant was that a part of her land had been acquired under land acquisition proceedings without her being served with notice under Section 9(3)[1] of the Land Acquisition…
Raza Buland Sugar Co Ltd. vs. The Municipal Board, Rampur [1965] 1 SCR 970 Key Words: mandatory, directory, non-compliance, object and purpose, shall, prejudice, legislative intent Facts: Rampur Municipality, by a special resolution, proposed to levy property tax on persons or a class or persons. S. 131(3) is divided into two parts. The first part lays…
State of Haryana & Anr. vs. Raghubir Dayal (1995) 1 SCC 133 Key Words: mandatory, directory, non-compliance, object and purpose, shall, prejudice FACTS: In this case Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the respondent holding that publication of the substance of the notification under Sections 4(1)[1] and 6 of the Land…
The Pioneer Container KH Enterprise v. Pioneer Container [1994] 2 AC 324 FACTS: The plaintiffs (owners) contracted with the freight carriers (first bailee) for the carriage of their goods by container from Taiwan to Hong Kong. The carriers issued the plaintiffs with bills of lading which provided that the carrier was entitled to sub-contract ‘on…
State of Gujarat v. Memon Mahomed 1967 SCR (3) 938 FACTS Two trucks of the respondent were seized by the appellant state for alleged smuggling; they were kept outside in open where they were totally uncared for so much so that a greater part of their machinery was pilfered away leaving only the their skeletons….
K. L. Johar and Company v Deputy Commercial Tax Officer AIR 1965 SC 1082 FACTS: The appellant was the financier which paid to the dealer the whole amount of the vehicle and entered into an agreement with the customers (who wanted to purchase the vehicle) whereby latter were required to pay the amount along with…
L’Oreal SA v. eBay International AG (C-324/09) [2011] R.P.C. 27 Key Words: Parallel Import, Exhaustion, Europe, Trade Mark, Infringement, eBay, put on the market, reputation, online sale Legal Provisions: EU Trade Mark Directive: Article 5 – According to Article 5(1) of the Directive, the registered trade mark confers on the proprietor exclusive rights therein. In addition, Article 5(1)(a)…
Louis Vuitton Mallettier v. Abdul Salim and Others CS(OS) 90/2006 Key Words: Parallel Import, Exhaustion, Trade Mark FACTS: This suit was filed for protection of rights in the trademark “Louis Vuitton”, trademark/logo “LV” and the “Toile monogram” design. The plaintiff as the registered proprietor of the aforesaid marks/logo/monogram sought order against the defendants from selling,…
M/s General Electric Company v. Altamas Khan and Ors. CS(OS) No.1283/2006 Keywords: Parallel Import, Exhaustion, Trade Mark FACTS: The plaintiff, General Electric Co. filed a suit against the defendants to restrain them from misrepresenting themselves as authorized distributors of the plaintiff and from trading as GE Dehumidifiers or in any other deceptively similar trading style and…
CISCO Technologies v. Shrikanth 2005 (31) PTC 538 (Del) Key Words: Parallel Import, Exhaustion, Trade Mark Act Facts In this case, plaintiff CISCO was selling its products used in computer hardware since the year 1984 under the trademark ‘CISCO’ and was using a ‘Bridge Device’. It was submitted that the product of the plaintiff is…