|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 934 Records
-
2013 (2) TMI 864
Issues Involved:
1. Contravention of Notification No 43/2002-Customs and Exim Policy 2002-2007.
2. Role of individuals in the conspiracy.
3. Involvement of transporters.
4. Issuance of show-cause notice and proposed penalties.
5. Absconding and subsequent statements of key individuals.
6. Financing of imports.
7. Arrest and retraction of statements.
8. Evidence and statements of co-accused.
9. Cross-examination and principles of natural justice.
10. Retraction of statements and their evidentiary value.
11. Role of accomplices and their statements.
Summary:
1. Contravention of Notification No 43/2002-Customs and Exim Policy 2002-2007:
Investigations revealed that M/s. Lord Empire International imported copper wire rods and zinc ingots under the DEEC scheme using fake documents. The firm contravened Notification No 43/2002-Customs and paragraph 4.1.1. of the Exim Policy 2002-2007, leading to goods being liable for confiscation u/s 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Role of Individuals in the Conspiracy:
Shri Surender Aggarwal, Shri Bhagwan Tulsian, and Shri Suresh Khandelwal orchestrated the fraud. Shri Bhimsen Bhagwat Singh, a CHA, knowingly aided in the clearance of goods. The transporters, Shri Gulbir Singh Anand and Shri Naresh Dhanji Bhanushali, also aided in the fraudulent transactions.
3. Involvement of Transporters:
The goods were transported from Nhava Sheva port to New Delhi by Shri Gulbir Singh Anand and Shri Naresh Dhanji Bhanushali, who aided in the fraudulent transactions.
4. Issuance of Show-Cause Notice and Proposed Penalties:
A show-cause notice dated October 3, 2007, was issued for recovery of Rs. 3,22,73,333.30 and confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 6,35,30,165. Penalties were proposed on M/s. Lord Empire International, Shri Surender Aggarwal, Shri Bhagwan Tulsian, Shri Suresh Khandelwal, Shri Bhimsen Bhagwat Singh, Shri Naresh Dhanji Bhanushali, and Shri Gulbir Singh Anand.
5. Absconding and Subsequent Statements of Key Individuals:
Shri Bhagwan Tulsian, Surender Kumar Aggarwal, and Shri Suresh Khandelwal were absconding initially. Their statements were recorded later, revealing the involvement of financiers like Shri Sajjan Kumar Goel.
6. Financing of Imports:
Shri Sajjan Kumar Goel financed the imports and shared the duty saved with the importers. His involvement was confirmed by multiple statements, including his own.
7. Arrest and Retraction of Statements:
Shri Sajjan Kumar Goel and Shri Bhagwan Tulsian were arrested and later granted bail. Shri Goel retracted his statements, claiming coercion, which was rebutted by the DRI.
8. Evidence and Statements of Co-Accused:
Statements from various individuals, including Shri Bhagwan Tulsian, Shri Suresh Khandelwal, and Shri Bhimsen Bhagwat Singh, corroborated the involvement of Shri Sajjan Kumar Goel in the fraudulent imports.
9. Cross-Examination and Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants argued that denial of cross-examination violated natural justice. However, the Tribunal held that there was no absolute right to cross-examination and the denial did not cause prejudice.
10. Retraction of Statements and Their Evidentiary Value:
The Tribunal held that retracted statements could still be relied upon if corroborated by other evidence. The statements given under section 108 of the Customs Act were considered voluntary and admissible.
11. Role of Accomplices and Their Statements:
The Tribunal found that the statements of co-accused could be relied upon to establish the involvement of the appellants in the fraudulent transactions. The evidence against the appellants was corroborated by multiple statements and documentary evidence.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal directed the appellants to make pre-deposits towards penalties within eight weeks and report compliance. The balance of penalties would be waived and recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeals.
-
2013 (2) TMI 863
Suppression of sales turnover in respect of sale of IMFL and cooked food, soft drinks / soda, etc. - Held that:- In this case it is not in dispute that the purchase made by the taxpayer was recorded in the books of account. It is not the case of the revenue that the taxpayer has purchased any IMFL outside the books of account. Therefore, there is no investment outside the books of account. As found by the PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES. [1999 (4) TMI 8 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] what is to be taken is only the profit element embedded in such suppressed turnover. CIT(A) has rightly found that what is to be added is only the profit element embedded in such transaction and not the entire turnover. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 862
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petition after condoning the delay. The citation is 2013 (2) TMI 862 - SC. The High Court reference is 2012 (7) TMI 591 - DELHI HIGH COURT. Justices involved were HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI. Petitioner's representatives were Mr. Mohan Parasaran, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Mr. Arijit Prasad, and Mrs. Anil Katiyar.
-
2013 (2) TMI 861
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Admission of Liability
3. Validity of the Dishonoured Cheque
4. Leave to Defend Application
Summary:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The defendants argued that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the cheques were drawn in Chennai and deposited in Dehradun. The plaintiff countered that the cheques were drawn on a Delhi bank account and deposited in Chennai, thus granting jurisdiction to the Delhi court. The court held that the principle of "debtor must seek the creditor" applies, giving the Delhi court jurisdiction since the plaintiff resides in Delhi.
2. Admission of Liability:
The defendants admitted to a liability of Rs.12,20,000/- but disputed the remaining Rs.9,01,550/-. The court noted that the defendants' conduct and failure to reply to the legal notice indicated an admission of liability. The court also considered the defendants' balance sheet and other documents confirming the debt.
3. Validity of the Dishonoured Cheque:
The defendants claimed the dishonoured cheque was stolen and forged. However, they failed to provide any evidence of reporting the theft or stopping the cheque's payment. The court found the defendants' explanation unconvincing and noted that the cheque bore the defendant No.2's signature. The court also referenced legal precedents affirming that a blank cheque signed and handed over implies authority to fill in the amount.
4. Leave to Defend Application:
The defendants' application for leave to defend was dismissed as their defenses were deemed frivolous, vexatious, and moonshine. The court found no substantial defense disclosed in the application.
Conclusion:
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff for the principal sum of Rs.21,21,550/-. Interest was awarded at 10% per annum from the date of dishonour of the cheque until the date of payment. The plaintiff was also entitled to the costs of the suit as per the schedule.
-
2013 (2) TMI 860
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court in scrutinizing government tenders.
2. Alleged arbitrary cancellation of tenders by the respondent.
3. Compliance with the CPWD Manual and reasonableness of rates.
4. Validity of the subsequent tender process initiated by the respondent.
Summary:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court in scrutinizing government tenders:
The Court emphasized that its role under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to ensure fair play by the authorities in tender processes, not to act as an appellate body. The Court's function is to ensure that authorities act within their formulated policies unless there is an attempt to tailor a policy for an individual.
2. Alleged arbitrary cancellation of tenders by the respondent:
The petitioners, registered civil contractors, claimed that the respondent arbitrarily canceled their tenders despite being the lowest bidders (L-1) for 16 works. The cancellation was initially justified on administrative grounds, but the petitioners alleged it was to favor certain contractors. The Court found that the respondent's justification for cancellation, based on higher rates compared to adjacent areas, was flawed as the petitioners' bids were below the estimated value.
3. Compliance with the CPWD Manual and reasonableness of rates:
The Court examined the CPWD Manual-2012, which mandates that reasonability of rates should be assessed based on justification rates. The petitioners' bids were below these justification rates, and the Court found no policy supporting the respondent's comparison with Abnormally Low Rates (ALRs) from adjacent areas. The Court concluded that the respondent's process in scrutinizing the tenders was faulty and not in compliance with the CPWD Manual.
4. Validity of the subsequent tender process initiated by the respondent:
The Court quashed the respondent's decision dated 30.11.2012 canceling the earlier tender and the subsequent tender process initiated on 13.12.2012. The Court directed that the bids submitted by the petitioners be processed in accordance with the law as per the original NIT dated 15.11.2012.
Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-, which were waived by the petitioners. The stay application became infructuous and was disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (2) TMI 859
Issues involved: Appeal against order u/s 147 for AY 2000-01, challenge to notice u/s 148, treatment of long term capital gain as income from other sources.
Notice u/s 148: The appeal included a challenge to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. Authorised Representative did not press this ground, leading to its dismissal.
Treatment of long term capital gain: The assessee declared Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 1,25,648/- from the sale of shares. However, the A.O. rejected the contention regarding the sale of shares through JRD Stock Broker, citing lack of supporting evidence. The A.O. found discrepancies in the documents provided and noted that the broker failed to comply with requests for information. The A.O. made additions totaling Rs. 1,34,432/-, including Rs. 1,500/- for unexplained expenditure on premium money paid to the broker.
Confirmation by CIT(A): The CIT(A) confirmed the additions, stating that the shares' transactions were not reported to the Stock Exchanges and the broker was involved in providing bogus entries. The CIT(A) upheld the additions of Rs. 1,32,932/- and Rs. 1,500/-, emphasizing the lack of genuine share business by the broker.
Appellant's arguments: The ld. Authorised Representative argued that the CIT(A) confirmed the A.O.'s actions without proper consideration. The appellant cited various orders in favor of the assessee from ITAT, Agra Bench and others, supporting the genuineness of the transactions.
Decision: After hearing both parties, it was found that the CIT(A) denied the opportunity for cross-examination of the broker, violating the principle of natural justice. The matter was sent back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, with directions to provide the assessee with the opportunity for cross-examination and to consider the evidence presented. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2013 (2) TMI 858
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the case with the order "Delay condoned." The High Court reference was from the Gujarat High Court in 2012. Mr. H.L. Dattu and Mr. Ranjan Gogoi were the judges. The legal representatives included Mr. Mohan Parasaran, Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Mr. K. Swami, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad for the petitioner(s), and Mr. Tarun Gulati, Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Mr. Shankey Agrawal, Mr. Rohan Batra for the respondent(s).
-
2013 (2) TMI 857
Issues involved: Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Summary:
The appellant filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction against the respondents, alleging that a Collaboration Agreement was entered into for the redevelopment of a property. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. The respondents denied privity of contract with the appellant and argued that the appellant had no cause of action. The law allows rejection of a plaint if it does not disclose a cause of action, based solely on the plaint and accompanying documents. The appellant contended that the respondent was its agent, but the court found no evidence to support this claim in the Collaboration Agreement. The court held that the appellant had no legal right to seek possession based on the Agreement. The suit was deemed frivolous, vexatious, and meritless, leading to its dismissal.
In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit based on the absence of a cause of action for the appellant to seek possession of the property under the Collaboration Agreement.
-
2013 (2) TMI 855
Issues involved: Department's appeal against deletion of depreciation on higher rate for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09.
Assessment Year 2007-08:
The department objected to the deletion of addition made by the AO on account of depreciation on a higher rate. The assessee, engaged in transportation business, claimed higher depreciation on concrete mixers mounted on trucks. The CIT(A) allowed the higher depreciation, considering the concrete mixers as part of the motor lorry. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing similar cases and finding that the concrete mixers cannot be used separately from the motor lorry.
Assessment Year 2008-09:
Similar to the previous year, the department challenged the deletion of addition made by the AO regarding depreciation on a higher rate. The CIT(A) again allowed the higher depreciation, emphasizing that the concrete mixers are integral to the motor lorry and cannot be used independently. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on previous judgments and confirming that the concrete mixers are part of the motor lorry, justifying the higher depreciation.
-
2013 (2) TMI 854
Issues involved: Appeal against CIT(A)'s order regarding deemed registration u/s 12AA and non-application of trust receipts for charitable purposes.
Deemed Registration u/s 12AA:
The department appealed against CIT(A)'s decision deeming the assessee to have been granted registration u/s 12AA. The Tribunal found no infirmity in CIT(A)'s findings, citing a previous order confirming the same. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous years as well. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the facts were similar to previous cases, there was no reason to interfere with the finding. The department's appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the E-Court on February 1st, 2013.
Non-application of Trust Receipts for Charitable Purposes:
The department objected to CIT(A)'s ruling that the assessee had not applied 85% of the receipts for trust purposes, leading to taxation under section 11(1)(a). The Tribunal, after considering submissions and evidence, found no fault with CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal referenced a similar issue being decided in favor of the assessee in a previous assessment year, with the Tribunal confirming CIT(A)'s order. Given the similarities in facts, the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision for the current year as well. Consequently, the department's appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the E-Court on February 1st, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 853
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of deemed membership under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
2. Compliance with society by-laws and regulations.
3. Applicability of government directions u/s 79A of the Act.
4. Timeliness of the application for deemed membership.
Summary:
1. Validity of Deemed Membership:
The petitioner society challenged the concurrent orders by the Divisional Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, which declared respondent No. 2 as a deemed member for plot No. 25. The petitioner argued that the transfer executed by Harshad Patel to respondent No. 2 was illegal as it violated society by-laws requiring prior permission. The court noted that u/s 22(2) of the Act, if a society does not communicate its decision within three months, the applicant is deemed admitted. The Deputy Registrar confirmed deemed membership, and the court upheld this decision, finding no timely communication of rejection to respondent No. 2.
2. Compliance with Society By-laws and Regulations:
The petitioner asserted that the transfer was invalid due to non-compliance with regulation-6A, which required a higher transfer fee. The court found that the primary ground for rejection was the inadequate transfer fee (Rs. 25,000 instead of Rs. 2 crore). The court held that the society could not impose such exorbitant fees, especially when the government had capped the transfer premium at Rs. 25,000.
3. Applicability of Government Directions u/s 79A:
Respondent No. 2 argued that the society's demand for Rs. 2 crore was unsustainable as the State Government's directions u/s 79A capped the transfer fee at Rs. 25,000. The court agreed, stating that directions under section 79A have statutory force and are binding on the society. The court cited several judgments affirming that government directions prevail over society by-laws in such matters.
4. Timeliness of the Application for Deemed Membership:
The petitioner claimed that respondent No. 2's application for deemed membership was belated. The court observed that respondent No. 2 was informed of the rejection only on 11th November 2005 and applied to the Registrar on 14th December 2005. The court found that this was within a reasonable time and dismissed the argument of delay.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Divisional Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar, confirming respondent No. 2's deemed membership. The court emphasized adherence to statutory directions and fair treatment of applicants, rejecting the society's exorbitant fee demands as contrary to public policy and statutory provisions.
-
2013 (2) TMI 852
The High Court of Bombay heard a case involving the taxation of profit on sale of investments and the disallowance of provision for doubtful loans. The court admitted the case based on substantial questions of law regarding these matters.
-
2013 (2) TMI 851
The Bombay High Court admitted an appeal based on substantial questions of law, including whether the appellant is a trader or investor in shares and entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on a BSE membership card. The Miscellaneous Application filed before the Tribunal is pending for disposal.
-
2013 (2) TMI 850
Issues involved: Claim for outstanding hiring charges, dispute over settlement amount, defense of the company, provision for security deposit.
The judgment pertains to a claim for outstanding hiring charges of a vibratory hammer with accessories for sheet piling work. The petitioner relied on invoices indicating the working hours of the machine, which the company did not object to. The company made partial payments but disputed the remaining amount, claiming a settlement for a lesser sum. Despite the company's assertion of settlement, the petitioner denied it, leading to a legal dispute over the outstanding amount.
The company failed to provide any concrete defense to the claim, although it asserted that the amount had been settled at a lower figure. The court acknowledged the theoretical possibility of the company presenting a valid defense during a regular action. However, as the company could not substantiate its claim of settlement with any supporting evidence, the court found no plausible defense against the claim. The company was granted the opportunity to establish its defense during a regular action by securing the entire claim of the petitioner.
To address the situation, the court provided the company with an option to furnish a cash security of Rs. 4.50 lakh within a specified timeframe. If the company deposited the security, the claim of the petitioner would be relegated to a suit, and the deposit would be credited to the suit if filed within four weeks. The court outlined the process for handling the security deposit, including investment in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. Failure to provide the security would result in the admission of the petition for the specified amount, allowing the petitioner to advertise the petition.
In the event that the company deposited the security and the petitioner did not initiate a suit within the stipulated timeframe, the company could request the immediate release of the security. The court instructed the advocates for both parties to communicate promptly upon the furnishing of the security. Additionally, the judgment specified that no costs were to be awarded at this stage of the proceedings.
-
2013 (2) TMI 849
The High Court of Calcutta modified an order on a creditor's winding-up petition, allowing the company to pay Rs. 4.50 lakh in 12 monthly installments starting from March 31, 2013. Failure to make payments will result in advertisements in "The Statesman" and "Bartaman," with the matter returning to court after four weeks. No costs were awarded, and publication in the official gazette was not required.
-
2013 (2) TMI 848
Issues involved: Challenge to vires of provisions of The Finance Act, 1994, legality of demand raised by order in original, applicability of service tax on construction work, timeliness of show cause notice, grant of interim relief.
Challenge to vires of provisions of The Finance Act, 1994:
The petitioner, a contractor, challenged certain provisions of The Finance Act, 1994. The original petition was amended to highlight that an order had been passed against the petitioner, who had filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a pending stay application. The petitioner argued that the demand raised by the order was illegal and without jurisdiction, especially regarding service tax on construction work for government or educational institutions. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was time-barred and lacked material for invoking the extended period of limitation.
Legality of demand raised by order in original:
The petitioner argued that the demand raised by the order in original was illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner claimed that no service tax was payable on construction work for government or educational institutions. The petitioner asserted that they had already discharged their liability to pay service tax on the services provided. The respondent, however, contended that the order in original was not the subject matter of the writ petition and was already under challenge before the Tribunal.
Applicability of service tax on construction work:
The petitioner, a contractor, argued that no service tax was payable on the construction work carried out for government or educational institutions. The petitioner claimed that the demand of service tax by the order in original was patently illegal. The petitioner contended that they had fulfilled their obligation to pay service tax on the services provided.
Timeliness of show cause notice:
The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was barred by time and lacked material to invoke the provision of the extended period of limitation. The respondent, however, maintained that the order in original was not the subject matter of the writ petition and was already under challenge before the Tribunal.
Grant of interim relief:
The court considered the challenge to the vires of certain provisions of the Act and the pending appeal before the Tribunal with a stay application. The court cited Supreme Court precedents on granting interim relief in such cases. The court found that it was not a fit case to grant interim relief as the order in original was not the subject matter of the writ petition, and an appeal with a stay application was pending before the Tribunal. The court rejected the stay application but directed the Tribunal to consider and decide the stay application expeditiously, providing relief from coercive action to the petitioner until the application's disposal.
-
2013 (2) TMI 847
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the authority of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) to levy development charges under Section 32A of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962, and the grant of Non-Agricultural Use permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.
Issue 1: Authority of GIDC to levy development charges
The applicant challenged the order passed by respondent No.3 (GIDC) levying development charges, causing a delay in the construction project. The applicant argued that GIDC does not have the authority to levy such charges. The applicant sought a direction for Non-Agricultural Use permission and issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to proceed with the project. The respondent contended that GIDC is empowered to levy development charges as per the GID Act, and addressing this issue in the present application would amount to deciding the main petition.
Issue 2: Grant of Non-Agricultural Use permission
The applicant requested the court to direct the authorities to grant Non-Agricultural Use permission for the land in question. The applicant's counsel argued that the delay in obtaining the NOC and permission is causing irreparable loss and hindering the project. The respondent opposed the application, stating that granting the relief sought in the application would be akin to deciding the main petition prematurely.
Judicial Analysis:
The court compared the prayers made in the petition with those in the application and found them substantially similar. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that granting final relief at an interim stage is not advisable. Referring to relevant judgments, the court highlighted that interim orders should not provide the principal relief sought in the petition. As the prayers in the application mirrored those in the pending petition, granting them would effectively decide the main issue before final adjudication. Therefore, the court rejected the application based on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court.
Conclusion:
The court rejected the application, emphasizing that granting the prayers in the application would amount to deciding the main petition prematurely. The court relied on legal precedents to support its decision, highlighting the importance of not providing final relief at an interim stage. The application was dismissed based on the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court regarding interim orders and final adjudication of issues raised in petitions.
-
2013 (2) TMI 846
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal for the Assessment Year 1998-99 regarding the long term capital loss on redemption of preference shares. The Tribunal's decision was upheld based on the precedent set by the Apex Court in Anarkali Sarabhai v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax.
-
2013 (2) TMI 845
Issues involved: Invocation of arbitration, appointment of arbitrator, disclosure of documents, recall of orders, arbitrability of claim and counter claim, jurisdiction of Chief Justice, review on merits, procedural review, interference with ongoing arbitral proceedings.
1. Invocation of arbitration and appointment of arbitrator:
The Applicant invoked arbitration by a notice dated 31 March 2011 following the execution of various agreements between the parties. An Arbitration Application under Section 11 was instituted, resulting in the appointment of a sole Arbitrator. The claim and counter claim were lodged before the Arbitrator, who passed an interim order requiring the Applicant to hand over possession subject to conditions.
2. Disclosure of documents and recall of orders:
The Chamber Summons sought to withdraw consent for the arbitrator's appointment due to the Respondent's alleged failure to disclose mortgages created in favor of financial institutions. The Applicant argued that had these facts been known earlier, consent for arbitration would not have been given. The Applicant also filed a counter claim, questioning the absolute ownership of the properties under dispute.
3. Arbitrability of claim and counter claim:
The Respondent contended that the issues raised by the Applicant should be left to the decision of the arbitral tribunal, as the scope of an application under Section 11 is limited. The law distinguishes between matters that can be arbitrated, such as personal obligations, and those that require court intervention, like mortgage suits for enforcement of rights in rem.
4. Jurisdiction of Chief Justice and review on merits:
The jurisdiction under Section 11 is narrower compared to Section 8, with the Chief Justice tasked to determine the existence of an arbitration agreement and other procedural matters. The Court emphasized that issues of arbitrability should be left to the arbitral tribunal, and any challenge to the tribunal's decision can be made under Section 34.
5. Procedural review and interference with ongoing proceedings:
The Chamber Summons procedure is not recognized under Part-I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, limiting judicial intervention to specified matters. A substantive review on merits is deemed unavailable for orders passed under Section 11. The Court declined to interfere with the ongoing arbitral proceedings before the Sole Arbitrator, dismissing the Chamber Summons.
In conclusion, the Court upheld the principles of limited judicial intervention in arbitration matters and emphasized the role of the arbitral tribunal in deciding issues of arbitrability. The Chamber Summons seeking to recall orders and challenge the appointment of the arbitrator was dismissed, allowing the arbitral proceedings to continue.
-
2013 (2) TMI 844
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to trademark infringement, passing off, and violation of statutory and common law rights.
Trademark Infringement and Passing Off:
The plaintiffs sought permanent injunction against the defendant for carrying on business under the mark "SATYA" or any deceptively similar mark. The defendant did not appear in court, leading to ex parte proceedings. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's use of the name "SATYA" infringed upon their registered trademark and was intended to gain unfair advantage over their goodwill.
Evidence and Arguments:
The plaintiffs provided evidence of their incorporation, business activities, turnover, and trademark registrations. They demonstrated the extensive use of the mark "SATYA" in their business operations for over 25 years. The court noted the plaintiffs' substantial promotional expenses and the mark's recognition as a well-known mark. The defendant, incorporated in 2009, did not contest the suit.
Decision and Injunction:
The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the defendant's use of the name "Staya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd." infringed upon the plaintiffs' trademark rights. A decree for permanent injunction was granted, restraining the defendant from using any name identical or deceptively similar to the trademark "SATYA." The court also highlighted the prohibition under Section 20 of the Companies Act, 1956 regarding registration of companies with names resembling existing trademarks.
Operative Period and Compliance:
To allow the defendant time for rectification, a three-month period was granted before the injunction became effective. The plaintiffs were permitted to serve the judgment and decree on the Registrar of Companies for necessary actions in case of non-compliance by the defendant. No costs were awarded due to the defendant's lack of contestation in the suit.
........
|
9911796707
