Fawazzx/semantic huggingface dataset:
The argument which was strenuously advanced on behalf of the appellant -plaintiff was that in a suit for redemption filed by the mortgagor in a Civil Court in respect of property notwithstanding the plea of the defendants' claim that they were tenants of that property under the BT & AL Act and under the provisions of that Act the issue of tenancy had to be referred by the Civil Court to the Mamlatdar for recording a finding thereon and the Civil Court can proceed to dispose 0
Semantic role: Argument
The appeal in this Court had arisen out of the finding recorded on that issue and in dealing with that matter this Court had.to consider the true effect of sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Rents Control Act to find whether it means that a defendant if raises a claim or question as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between him and plaintiff the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted even though the plaintiff pleaded that there is only exclusive jurisdiction to decide the case with the Court of Small Causes,Bombay
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
The interpretation canvassed for by the appellants will give rise to anomalous results; for example,the defendant may in every case force the plaintiff to go to the Court of Small Causes and secondly,if the Court of Small Causes finds against the defendant's plea,the plaint may have to be returned for presentation to the proper court for a second time.when one has regard to the provisions in Part II it seems reasonably clear that the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by S.28 is really dependent on an existing or previous relationship of landlord and tenant and on claims arising under the Act as between such parties
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
Furthermore,section 85A,as it stood prior to its amendment by Gujarat Amendment Act No.5 in the year 1973 and as stands thereafter,requires that if any suit instituted in Civil Court involves the question of tenancy of 'present' or 'past',as the case may be,the same being required to be decided or dealt with by an authority competent under the BT & AL Act,the Civil Court has to stay the suit and refer the issue to such competent authority for determination and after receiving the decision thereon to dispose of the suit in accordance with such decision
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
The State of Manipur is in appeal before us questioning the judgment and order dated 29.07.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court in WA Nos.61,78,79,95 and 100 of 1999 upholding a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the said Court dated 19.02.1999 in C.R.Nos.324,1012,568,1022 and 1023 of 1998
Semantic role: Facts
Appointments were made on 11.09.1997,22.11.1997 and 5.12.1997.A sample copy of the offer of appointment reads as under: "No.1/14/97 Com (Rev): On the recommendation of D.P.C.and under the directives issued by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court,the following persons are hereby appointed as Mandols on temporary basis in the scale of pay of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1400/-per month with usual allowances against thereto existing clear vacancies of Mandals under Revenue Department from the date of their joining on duties
Semantic role: Facts
A.R.Khan,Secretary (Revenue) has made many appointments of Mandols/ Process Servers/ Zilladars in the recent months against which I have been complaining that the Secretary (Revenue) has no power or authority to make any appointments of field staff as per Rules provided under M.L.R.Act,1960.In this regard,I have apprised the matter to the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) already and also informed the Chief Secretary,Manipur explaining that the Secretary (Revenue) cannot make such appointments of field staffs,even if he wanted to do so,all the relevant files should have been routed through the undersigned so that the same may be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue).His action has created lots of misunderstanding and confusion
Semantic role: Facts
The said Shri Tayeng retired on 28.02.1998.Despite the fact that he,in his UO Note dated 12.02.1998 addressed to the Minister of Revenue,denied to have made any appointment,when approached by the writ petitioners respondents,he affirmed in their support an affidavit in the High Court stating: "3.That,while I was functioning as Revenue Commissioner,Manipur,matters relating to appointment on the recommendation of the D.P.C.,transfer etc.were put-up to me in files and I used to pass order on the basis of facts presented to me in file
Semantic role: Facts
Whereas,in the impugned order,the appointments of the respondents were said to have been passed without the knowledge of the Administrative Department (Revenue Department); in the counter affidavit,it was stated that no records were available in respect thereof and,thus,the said plea being inconsistent with each other,the orders of cancellation of appointment would be bad in law in the light of a decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr.v
Semantic role: Ruling by Lower Court
The appellant got the trade mark 'Infosys' registered in 1987 in classes 16 and 9 in connection with computer stationery,computer manuals,printed manual for computer instruction and teaching materials; computer hardwares,computer interface,computer peripherals,electronics telex interface and in 1988 in class 7 in connection with machine and machine tools and motors (not for land vehicles).The particulars with reference to the trade mark registered by the appellant are as follows
Semantic role: Facts
The appellant having come to know of several instances of misuse of mark 'Infosys' also filed a writ petition (being writ petition no.14214 of 2000) before the Calcutta High Court,inter alia,praying that the Registrar of Companies be restrained from registering the companies bearing the name 'Infosys'.On September 13,2000,the Calcutta High Court restrained the Department of Company Affairs and Registrar of Companies from incorporating any company bearing the name 'Infosys' without the permission of the appellant
Semantic role: Facts
the 1958 Act').In O.P.No.764 of 2001,the first respondent prayed for the removal/rectification of the entry in the register of trade mark in respect of trade mark No.475269 in Class 16 while in the other two applications being O.P.No.765 of 2001 and O.P.No.766 of 2001,the first respondent prayed for removal/rectification of trade mark No.475267 in Class 9 and trade mark No.484837 in Class 7 respectively
Semantic role: Facts
Accordingly it is directed that pending further consideration of the matter after notice for the next date of hearing,the defendants are restrained by themselves,their directors,employees,agents and/or others acting on its behalf,from using the trade mark/corporate name INFOSYS or any other mark/name deceptively similar trade mark or colourable imitation thereof as a mark and/or corporate name or as part of a mark and/or business name,in respect of goods and/or services,for publicity on propaganda,on websites and or in domain names,in any way,whatsoever,thereby causing infringement of the registered trade mark INFOSYS of the plaintiff in isolation or in combination with words/letters/numbers their advertisements as part of their corporate name either in isolation or in goods and services,or in or by way of any advertisement/publicity campaigns etc
Semantic role: Facts
The IPAB in the impugned order held that the trade mark Nos.475269,475267 and 484837 have not been used by the appellant for more than a period of five years and one month and the appellant also failed to make out that it had been in manufacturing or trading of the goods for which it had taken Registration Nos.475269,475267 and 484837.Consequently,the IPAB allowed the applications made by the first respondent purportedly under Section 46(1)(b) of The 1958 Act and directed the Registrar to remove these registrations from the register
Semantic role: Facts
Akhil Sibal,learned counsel for the appellant argued that an application for rectification,whether under Section 46 or Section 56 of The 1958 Act,can only be preferred by a 'person aggrieved'; the applicant must not only be a person aggrieved on the date of the application but must continue to remain a person aggrieved until such time as the rectification application is finally decided
Semantic role: Argument
According to him,the IPAB sought to rely upon 'computer programming' which is a 'service' enumerated in Class 42,without considering the distinction between a 'computer programme' and 'computer programming' and without noticing the entry 'computer' under Class 9 which falls within 'goods'.Learned counsel would submit that in examining the question of non-use under Section 46(1)(b),the IPAB failed to consider that the requisite use must be 'in relation to goods' under registration,which is extensively defined under Section 2(2)(b) of The 1958 Act
Semantic role: Argument
With reference to the affidavit dated July 14,2004 filed by the first respondent before the Court of Additional District Judge,he submitted that the said affidavit has no relevance in consideration as to whether the first respondent is an aggrieved person as Section 46 (1) of The 1958 Act relates only to the period upto the date of the filing of the rectification application and the rights of the parties crystallized at that stage itself
Semantic role: Argument
Liberty Insurance Ltd.(1967 116 C.L.R.177).Learned counsel for the first respondent further submitted that the affidavit dated July 14,2004 was not placed by the appellant before the IPAB nor any reference of the said affidavit has been made in the written submissions before the IPAB and the appellant also did not make any effort to amend the pleadings that the first respondent was not an aggrieved person
Semantic role: Argument
Vaibhav Gaggar that even otherwise in view of the fraud perpetrated by the appellant qua the registrations in question,the issue as to whether the first respondent had a dispute with the trade mark or not pales into insignificance as the primary duty of the court is to maintain the 'purity of the register'.He argued that in a case such as the present one since the allegations against the appellant relate to trafficking,squatting and non-user,the scope of 'person aggrieved' has to be enlarged
Semantic role: Argument
Learned counsel submitted that the fact that the appellant continues to allege and that stance has not changed in the pleadings in SLP as well that the first respondent is an infringer,pilfriger,defrauder,someone who wants to ride on the goodwill of the appellant or someone who wants to mislead the public at large,there is no question of the first respondent ceasing to be a person aggrieved at any stage
Semantic role: Argument
47,a registered trade mark may be taken off the register in respect of any of the goods in respect of which it is registered on application made in the prescribed manner to a High Court or to the Registrar by any person aggrieved on the ground either: (a) that the trade mark was registered without any bona fide intention on the part of the applicant for registration that it should be used in relation to those goods by him or,in a case to which the provisions of section 45 apply,by the company concerned,and that there has,in fact,been no bona fide use of the trade mark in relation to those goods by any proprietor thereof for the time being up to a date one month before the date of the application; or (b) that up to a date one month before the date of the application,a continuous period of five years or longer had elapsed during which the trade mark was registered  18  and during which there was no bona fide use thereof in relation to those goods by any proprietor thereof for the time being: Provided that,except where the applicant has been permitted under sub-section (3) of section 12 to register an identical or nearly resembling trade mark in respect of the goods in question or where the tribunal is of opinion that he might properly be permitted so to register such a trade mark,the tribunal may refuse an application under clause (a) or clause (b) in relation to any goods,if it is shown that there has been,before the relevant date or during the relevant period,as the case may be,bona fide use of the trade mark by any proprietor thereof for the time being in relation to goods of the same description,being goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered
Semantic role: Statute
2) Where in relation to any goods in respect of which a trade mark is registered: (a) the circumstances referred to in clause (1) of sub-section (1) are shown to exist so far as regards non-use of the trade mark in relation to goods to be sold,or otherwise traded in,in a particular place in India (otherwise than for export from India),or in relation to goods to be exported to a particular market outside India; and (b) a person has been permitted under sub-section (3) of section 12 to register an identical or nearly resembling trade mark in respect of those goods under a registration extending to use in relation to goods to be so sold,or otherwise traded in,or in relation to goods to be so exported,or the tribunal is of opinion that he might properly be permitted so to register such a trade mark,on application by that person in the prescribed manner to a High Court or to the Registrar,the tribunal may impose on the registration of the first-mentioned trade mark such limitations as it thinks proper for securing that that registration shall cease to extend to such use.19 (3
Semantic role: Statute
Any person aggrieved by the absence or omission from the register of any entry,or by any entry made in the register without sufficient cause,or by any entry wrongly remaining on the register,or by any error or defect in any entry in the register,may apply in the prescribed manner to a High Court or to the Registrar,and the tribunal may make such order for making,expunging or varying the entry as it may think fit
Semantic role: Statute
Section 46(1) of The 1958 Act enables any person aggrieved to apply for removal of registered trade mark from the register on the ground of non use as stated in Clause (a) and/or Clause (b).To be an aggrieved person under Section 46,he must be one whose interest is affected in some possible way; it must not be a fanciful suggestion of grievance
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
In Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names (11th edition) at page 166,the legal position with regard to 'person aggrieved' has been summarized thus The persons who are aggrieved are all persons who are in some way or the other substantially interested in having the mark removed where it is a question of removal from the register; including all persons who would be substantially damaged if the mark remained,and all trade rivals over whom an advantage was gained by a trader who was getting the benefit of a registered trade mark to which he was not entitled
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
It was in this sense that the House of Lords defined "person aggrieved" in the matter of Powell's Trade Mark: "...although they were no doubt inserted to prevent officious interference by those who had no interest at all in the register being correct,and to exclude a mere common informer,it is undoubtedly of public interest that they should not be unduly limited,inasmuch as it is a public mischief that there should remain upon the register a mark which ought not to be there,and by which many persons may be affected,who,nevertheless,would not be willing to enter upon the risk and expense of litigation
Semantic role: Precedent
Whenever it can be shown,as here,that the applicant is in the same trade as the person who has registered the trade mark,and wherever the trade mark,if remaining on the register,would,or might,limit the legal rights of the applicant,so that by reason of the existence of the entry on the register he could not lawfully do that which,but for the existence of the mark upon the register,he could lawfully do,it appears to me he has a locus standi to be heard as a person aggrieved
Semantic role: Precedent
The applications having been transferred to the IPAB in terms of Section 100 of the 1999 Act,the IPAB examined the matter in light of the issues that were framed by the High Court although in the written submissions before it,the objection was raised that the first respondent has ceased to have locus standi in view of the subsequent events,particularly change of the name of the first respondent from Jupiter Infosys Ltd.to Jupiter International Ltd
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
In the affidavit filed by the first respondent on July 14,2004 before the Court of Additional District Judge,Delhi an unequivocal and categorical statement has been made that now there is no dispute between the plaintiff (appellant herein) and defendant (first respondent herein) under the Trade Mark and that defendant has already changed the Trade Mark namely "Jupiter International Ltd." in place of "Jupiter Infosys Ltd
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
In re Apollinaris Company's Trade-Marks,while dealing with this aspect,Kekemich,J.stated : ".....because that is a remedy given to the person aggrieved through the interposition of the Court for the benefit of the 14 (1891) 2 Ch.186  27  applicant,and if at the date of the trial he has no cause of complaint it seems to be monstrous to suppose that the Court will rectify the register at his instance when it can do him no good to rectify,and when the retention on the register can do him no harm merely because at the date of his application he may have had some grievance
Semantic role: Precedent
To say that the words "finally disposed of" mean finally disposed of so far as the High Court is concerned is illogical because Rules 1,4 and 7 use the words "be heard and disposed of by a Divisional Bench" and were the reasoning of the Full Bench correct,it would mean that so far as the High Court is concerned,when a Single Judge hears a matter and disposes it of,it is finally disposed of and when a Division Bench disposes it of,it is not finally disposed of
Semantic role: Precedent
Dinkar Kashinath Watve 1989 Indlaw SC 421,C.A.No.520 of 1989 decided on 27.1.1989 held as follows: "Even when in the cause title of an application both Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution have been mentioned,the learned single Judge is at liberty to decide,according to facts of each particular case,whether the said application ought to be dealt with only u/art.226 of the Constitution
Semantic role: Precedent
Thereafter this Court explained the ratio laid down in the case of Umaji's case1986 Indlaw SC 651 (supra) and expressed thus: "In Umaji case it was clearly held that where the facts justify a party in filing an application either u/art.226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and the party chooses to file his application under both these articles in fairness of justice to party and in order not to deprive him of valuable right of appeal the Court ought to treat the application as being made under Article 226,and if in deciding the matter,in the final order the Court gives ancillary directions which may pertain to Article 227,this ought not to be held to deprive a party of the right of appeal under cl.15 of the Letters Patent where the substantial part of the order sought to be appealed against is u/art.226.Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules read with cl.15 of the Letters Patent provides for appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court from a judgment of the learned Single Judge passed on a writ petition u/art.226 of the Constitution
Semantic role: Precedent
In our opinion,where the facts justify a party in filing an application either u/art.226 or 227 of the Constitution,and the party chooses to file his application under both these articles,in fairness and justice to such party and in order not to deprive him of the valuable right of appeal the court ought to treat the application as being made under Article 226,and if in deciding the matter,in the final order the court gives ancillary directions which may pertain to Article 227,this ought not to be held to deprive a party of the right of appeal under cl.15 of the Letters Patent where the substantial part of the order sought to ^*296be appealed against is u
Semantic role: Precedent
Ashok Hurra [AIR 2002 SC 1771 2002 Indlaw SC 1966],this Court held as follows: "From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is quite vivid and luminescent that the pleadings in the writ petition,nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge,character and the contour of the order,directions issued,nomenclature given the jurisdictional prospective in the Constitutional context are to be perceived
Semantic role: Precedent
The District Collector,Meerut,pursuant to a report of the Tehsildar,ordered to pay the compensation amount after adjustment of different dues payable by the Company.11.Pursuant to a Court's order,the District Collector,Meerut passed a speaking order dated 20th February,1992 showing the details of adjustments to be made out of compensation amount of Rs.4.34 crores payable by the Company,as detailed below
Semantic role: Facts
The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 1st March,2011,though noticed the aforesaid facts including the fact that the Collector,Tulsi Gaur by order dated 20th February,1992 held that there were dues of about Rs.10.44 crores payable by the Company,part of which can be adjusted from the compensation amount paid by the Meerut Development Authority,even thereafter an amount of Rs.6.09 crores will remain payable by the Company,but the High Court failed to address such issue
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
Writ Petition No.16451 of 1999 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad challenging the sale proclamation dated 28th March,1992,order dated 30th May,1992 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Meerut confirming the sale of the properties owned by the Company and the order dated 5th April,1999 passed by the Commissioner,Meerut Division,Meerut whereby the objections filed by the Company under Rule 285-1 of the Rules framed under U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Reforms Act") was rejected
Semantic role: Facts
The order dated 05.04.1999 (annexure-23),order dated 30.05.1992 (Annexure-7),sale proclamation dated 28.3.1992 (Annexure-2) are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to restore back status quo ante as on before the auction sale dated 28.04.1992 was held,within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is communicated to the competent authority
Semantic role: Ruling by Lower Court
The review application was disposed of by an order dated 3rd September,2001 with the following observations: "In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,in my opinion,it will meet the ends of justice if I grant three months time to the respondent no.2 and 3 to refund the amount in question to the auction purchasers/application,during this time the said amount shall positively be paid to them
Semantic role: Ruling by Lower Court
C.A.Nos.6169-6171 of 2013,C.A.Nos.6172-6174 of 2013,C.A.No.7122 of 2003,C.A.Nos.7123-7124 of 2003,C.A.No.7125 of 2003 are allowed in terms of the directions as above
Semantic role: Ruling by Present Court
A suit was filed in S.C.Suit No.493 of 1986 in the Bombay City Civil Court,Bombay by Vicco Laboratories,appellant herein,manufacturers of ayurvedic pharmaceutical products against defendant Nos.1 to 4,respondents herein,for a declaration that the title and format of the suit serial "Yeh Jo Hai Zindagi" exclusively belonged to them and respondents Nos.1 to 4 have no right thereto and for permanent injunction restraining the said respondents from making use of the title or episodes belonging to the petitioners or any episodes hereafter made
Semantic role: Facts
Pursuant to the said arrangement,the respondent Nos.1 to 4 as the agents of the petitioners prepared at the costs and expenses of the petitioners,a serial entitled "Yeh Jo Hai Zindagi".The petitioners claimed that as a result of the employment of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the finances paid by them the petitioners are the owners of the said serial "Yeh Jo Hai Zindagi" and the title thereof
Semantic role: Facts