Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: trade marks Court: allahabad Year: 1970 Page 1 of about 69 results (0.024 seconds)

Oct 21 1970 (HC)

Pt. Ram Avtar Sharma and ors. Vs. Pt. Chakradhar Saran Sharma and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-21-1970

Reported in : AIR1971All157

..... 1944 and 1945) but on the date of the passing of the decree respondent no. 1 alone was the proprietor of the two trade marks. as for the trade mark being publici juris, the learned single judge held that gadadhar prasad had the exclusive right to use the word 'himkalyan tail' which was ..... application the name of chakradhar saran was substituted and all the formalities were completed for the publication of the trade marks in the trade mark journal. the registrar has further stated that these two trade marks were thus registered, which registration is effective from the date of the application and has further been renewed ..... the expression 'contrary to any law for the time being in force' in section 8 (c) means any law other than the trade marks act. section 6 of the trade marks act is not covered by the wordings of section 8 (c) of the act. (see ram rakhpal's case supra). 25. ..... the affidavit of kashi nath that sri gadadhar prasad made a deliberate false statement that he was the sole proprietor of the trade marks whereas in fact the said trade marks were the property of the joint hindu family consisting of gadadhar prasad, his sons and grandsons. it has further been alleged ..... hindu family in the joint hindu family business'. admittedly these applications and amendments thereof were filed by gadadhar prasad under section 14 of the trade marks act. the registrar was acquainted with the two statements of facts contained therein. it cannot accordingly be held that the registrar was defrauded .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 1970 (HC)

Sarju Prasad Pandey and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-07-1970

Reported in : AIR1970All571

..... of the constitution, the learned chief justice said:'if therefore article 289(1) completely exempts all property of the states from all taxes the power of parliament to regulate foreign trade by the use of its power of taxation would be seriously impaired and this consideration will have to be kept in mind when interpreting article 289(1).'re-emphasising this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 1970 (HC)

Smt. Hirakali Vs. Dr. Ram Asrey Awasthi

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-23-1970

Reported in : AIR1971All201

mukerjee, j.1. the material facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: the appellant smt. kirakali was the wife of respondent dr. ram asray avasthi, a professor in the christ church college, kanpur. the marriage took place in the year 1950 and thereafter the parties lived together as husband and wife and a daughter named saroj devi was born to them. subsequently, the parties fell out and the respondent filed a petition under section 13 of the hindu marriage act in the court of the civil judge. fatehpur for the dissolution of his marriage with the appellant. the petition was registered as suit no. 9 of 1964 in the court of the civil judge. in that suit a compromise was arrived at between the parties to the effect that there will he a decree for judicial separation instead of a decree for divorce. a decree in terms of the compromise was passed by the court on 20-3-1965.2. more than two years after the date of the consent decree in the above suit the respondent filed a petition in the civil court stating that there had been no cohabitation between him and his wife after the decree for judicial separation had been passed. the respondent, therefore, asked for a decree for dissolution of the marriage under section 13(1-a)(i) of the act.3. the appellant resisted thedecree for divorce asked for by the respondent. her contention was that she was persuaded to give her consent to the judicial separation by fraud, misrepresentation practised by the respondent. she stated that she .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 13 1970 (HC)

H.H. Maharaja Vibhuti NaraIn Singh Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-13-1970

Reported in : [1970]78ITR714(All)

t.p. mukerjee, j.1. this is a reference made by the appellate tribunal under section 27(1) of the wealth-tax act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the reference has been made at the instance of maharaja vibhuti narain singh of varanasi (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'). the statement of the case submitted by the tribunal relates to the assessment years 1957-58 and 1959-60, the corresponding period being the 31st march, 1957, and the 31st march, 1958.2. the material facts bearing on this reference are as follows:3. the assessee was previously the ruler of a native state called thebanaras state. on 5th september, 1949, there was an agreement between the governor-general of india and the assessee. india at that time enjoyed dominion status under the british crown. article i of that agreement, extracts from which have been annexed to the statement of the case as annexure 'a', runs as follows:'the maharaja of banaras hereby cedes to the dominion government full and exclusive authority jurisdiction and powers for and in relation to the governance of the state and agrees to transfer the administration of the state to the dominion government on the 15th day of october, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said day') as from the said day, the dominion government will be competent to exercise the said powers, authority and jurisdiction in such manner and through such agency as it may think fit.';4. article 2 entitles the assessee to receive the sum of rs. 2,80,000 free .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1970 (HC)

Sri Krishna Chandra Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-19-1970

Reported in : [1972]29STC635(All)

r.l. gulati, j. 1. this is a reference under section 11(1) of the u.p, sales tax act.2. the assessee did not file any return for the assessment year 1957-58. an action was taken against him under section 21 of the act. a notice was issued by the assistant sales tax officer under section 21 which was served by affixation on the dealer on 17th february, 1962. thereafter the sales tax officer formed the opinion that the assistant sales tax officer was not competent to issue the notice. he accordingly vacated the earlier notice and issued a fresh one on 30th march, 1962. subsequently, on 29th march, 1963, an order of assessment was passed under section 21 of the act. the assessee appealed and contended before the appellate authority that the service of the notice by affixation on 30th march, 1962, was not valid-, because service by affixation was permissible after all other modes of service had been exhausted. the assistant commissioner (judicial) did not accept this contention, but remanded the case for a fresh assessment on the ground that the case had not been properly scrutinised by the sales tax officer. the assessee then applied in revision and reiterated his objection that there had been no valid service upon him of a notice under section 21, inasmuch as the service by affixation on 30th march, 1962, was invalid, because other modes of service had not been exhausted. the judge (revisions) did not accept this submission, because he was of the opinion that the telegram sent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 1970 (HC)

Seth Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-09-1970

Reported in : [1971]80ITR693(All)

pathak, j.1. in this and the connected writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of proceedings relating to the search and seizure of their account books and other documents under section 132(1) of the income-tax act, 1961.2. purporting to act under section 132(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, the officers of the income-tax department raided the premises of the petitioners at meerut on june 7 and 8, 1963, and seized and removed a large number of account books and other documents ....3. these petitions were filed on august 23, 1963. they were allowed by a bench of this court on march 27, 1964, on the ground that the action taken by the income-tax authorities and officers constituted an abuse of power and was, therefore, mala fide.4. the income-tax officer appealed to the supreme court. the supreme court did not agree with the view taken by this court. it observed that the allegations of the petitioners had been denied by the income-taxauthorities, and if this court was of the view that an investigation should be made it should have directed evidence, to be taken viva voce. the supreme court allowed the appeals and remanded the cases to this court for the decision of the question which remained undecided.5. the cases have now come before us on remand. a number of applications have been made by the petitioners praying that permission be granted to produce certain witnesses and also praying that the deponents of the counter-affidavit filed in these petitions .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 1970 (HC)

Sales Tax Commissioner, U.P. Vs. Beharilal Ram Krishna and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-13-1970

Reported in : AIR1971All17; [1971]27STC182(All)

pathak, j.1. this reference has been made under section 11 (1) of the u. p. sales tax act and is in respect of six dealers. the questions referred are:--'(1) whether an exemption application in form v, which is accompanied by deposit of deficit fee (as being not in accordance with rule 20-b (a) must necessarily be rejected as incompetent, not maintainable or not in order ?(2) whether the assessing authority has jurisdiction to demand the deficiency in the initial deposit of the fee? if so, must he demand the initial deficiency during the currency of the assessment year before rejecting the exemption application as such ?(3) whether in case of initial deficit deposit the assessing authority is competent after the expiry of the assessment year, to finalise the exemption case in terms of sub-clauses (h) and (i) of rule 20-b and then demand the total deficiency ?(4) whether a default assessment under rule 23 can be made only upon the failure of the assessee to deposit the deficiency on demand ?'2. the dealers carry on business in food-grains. they applied under rule 20-b (a) of the u. p, sales tax rules for exemption from sales tax, the applications being made on different dates. one of them, m/s. basdeo ram manohar lal, applied for exemption for the assessment year 1958-59, while the rest applied for exemption for the assessment year 1957-58. with the exemption application each dealer deposited an amount towards the exemption fee purporting to be in compliance with rule 20-b (a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 1970 (HC)

Official Liquidator Vs. Bhagwat Saran Garg and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-07-1970

Reported in : [1970]40CompCas657(All)

w. broome, j.1. two applications require to be disposed of in the liquidation proceedings of the northern india oil industries limited, which was ordered to be wound up on august 7, 1963, on a petition presented by the registrar of companies on may 24, 1962. the first is company application no. 8 of 1968 (presented on january 30, 1968), in which the official liquidator had asked the court to direct bhagwat saran garg and mukat saran garg (o.ps. 1 and 2) to pay up the rent due from them from december 1, 1964, onwards under a lease of the company's properties executed in their favour by the company on november 30, 1961, and extended by the liquidator for a period of two years from december 1, 1966. the second is company application no. 4 of 1969 (presented on january 20, 1969), whereby in addition to the prayer in the earlier application for a direction to the lessees to pay up the rent due, the official liquidator has asked for a further direction to be issued to them to hand over possession of the properties forthwith, in view of the fact that the lease has expired on november 30, 1968.2. by the lease dated november 30, 1961, the northern india oil industries limited let out to bhagwat saran garg and mukat saran garg the whole of its movable and immovable properties, consisting of an oil mill with its building, the land on which the building stood and the land appurtenant thereto, various ancillary departments (such as paint factory, ice factory, linseed oil plant and soap .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 1970 (HC)

J.K. Hosiery Factory Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-04-1970

Reported in : [1971]81ITR557(All)

..... commerce was charitable. the memorandum of association provided that, in order to achieve that charitable purpose, the chambers could take steps to urge or oppose legislation or other measures affecting trade, commerce or manufacture, thereby providing a method for achieving the ultimate charity. in the case before us, the object mentioned in clause 2(b)(i) has not been stated in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 1970 (HC)

Farzand Ali Vs. Shaukat Ali and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-08-1970

Reported in : AIR1971All12; 1971CriLJ29

sahgal, j.1. the sub-divisional magistrate, tanda, had before him a proceeding pending under section 145 of the criminal p. c. as the magistrate was unable to decide as to which of the parties was in possession of the disputed property at the relevant time, he made a reference to the civil court under section 146(1} of the code of criminal procedure. the reference was decided by the munsif of akbarpur and he transmitted his finding thereon to the sub-divisional magistrate. the sub-divisional magistrate on receipt of that finding disposed of the proceeding before him in conformity with the decision of the civil court. against that order of the sub-divisional magistrate an application in revision was filed before the sessions judge, faizabad. the sessions judge dismissed the application on the ground that in view of an authority of this court, the finding of the civil court could not be challenged in revision not only against that particular finding, but also in revision against the final order passed by the magistrate on the basis of that finding. a contrary view of a full bench of the patna high court was cited before him but he being bound by the view of the allahabad high court could not help the applicant before him.2. it is in these circumstances that an application was filed in revision before this court. the matter came up before a learned single judge of this court who referred it to a division bench and that bench finding in conflict of authority of this court on the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //