ramesh (Advocate) 09 January 2009
Nu.Delhi.Law.Fora. (Advocate-on-Record Supreme Court of India) 09 January 2009
Dear Sir,
Please check your citation. I fear its not right. However, from 1970 - 1979, I found following case laws involving Imperial:
Imperial Chemical Industries Limited vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, West Bengal Iii [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]
The Judgment was delivered by DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.This reference is in respect of wealth-tax assessments of the Imperial Chemical Industries, London, the assessee, in the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. The relevant
29 Mar 1979
Imperial Chemical Industries Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal Iv [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]
The Judgment was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.In this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
07 Mar 1978
Imperial Chemical Industries Limited vs Income Tax Officer, 'B' Ward, Companies District Iv, and Others [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]
The Judgment was delivered by SALIL K ROY CHOWDHURY J. :SALIL K ROY CHOWDHURY J. - The short question involved in this appeal is whether the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to issue the notice dated on 20th May, 1970, under section 148 of the
11 Oct 1974
Imperial Tobacco Company of India Limited vs Authority Appointed By The State of West Bengal Under Payment of Wages Act and Others [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]
The Order of the Court is as followsThis is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant being the Imperial Tobacco Company of India Ltd., and it concerns as application made under 15 of the Payment of Wages Act,
Trust thould suffice
Nu.Delhi.Law.Fora. (Advocate-on-Record Supreme Court of India) 09 January 2009
| 1977 INDLAW CAL 159 | |
| [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] | |
| |
| SALIL KUMAR DATTA 14 Jun 1977 | |
| BENCH SANKAR PRASAD MITRA C. J, SALIL KUMAR DATTA, JJ & JJ COMPARATIVE CITATIONS 23 PTC 533, 1977 INDLAW CAL 159 ACTS REFERRED Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958[s. 9, s. 9(2), s. 9(5), s. 18(6), s. 109(2), s. 109(5), s. 109] Companies Act, 1956 Trade Marks Act, 1919[s. 2] Trade Marks (Amendment) Act, 1937 Trade Marks Act, 1940 British Act of 1938 (ENG)[s. 9(3), s. 9(1)(d), s. 9(1)(e), s. 9(1), s. 9(5)(b), s. 10(2), s. 9(2), s. 9(4), s. 9(5), s. 10(1)] | |
| CASE NO A.F.O.O. No. 190 of 1969 | |
EDITOR'S NOTE Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Appeal to challenge order rejecting application for registration of trade marks – Registration was sought for trade mark for label, used as wrapper of packets of cigarettes bearing device of snow clad hills in outline with word 'Simla' – Held, 'Simla' is too prominent a city, capital of Himachal Pradesh, well known in country and abroad and in its ordinary or geographical significance it is inherently neither distinctive nor adapted to distinguish also nor capable of distinguishing goods of appellant as a particular trader from those of others, and is also hit by provisions of Section 9 sub-section (1) C1. (d) of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 – Appeal dismissed. |
| 1977 INDLAW CAL 159 | |
| [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] | |
| |
| SALIL KUMAR DATTA 14 Jun 1977 | |
| BENCH SANKAR PRASAD MITRA C. J, SALIL KUMAR DATTA, JJ & JJ COMPARATIVE CITATIONS 23 PTC 533, 1977 INDLAW CAL 159 ACTS REFERRED Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958[s. 9, s. 9(2), s. 9(5), s. 18(6), s. 109(2), s. 109(5), s. 109] Companies Act, 1956 Trade Marks Act, 1919[s. 2] Trade Marks (Amendment) Act, 1937 Trade Marks Act, 1940 British Act of 1938 (ENG)[s. 9(3), s. 9(1)(d), s. 9(1)(e), s. 9(1), s. 9(5)(b), s. 10(2), s. 9(2), s. 9(4), s. 9(5), s. 10(1)] | |
| CASE NO A.F.O.O. No. 190 of 1969 | |
EDITOR'S NOTE Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Appeal to challenge order rejecting application for registration of trade marks – Registration was sought for trade mark for label, used as wrapper of packets of cigarettes bearing device of snow clad hills in outline with word 'Simla' – Held, 'Simla' is too prominent a city, capital of Himachal Pradesh, well known in country and abroad and in its ordinary or geographical significance it is inherently neither distinctive nor adapted to distinguish also nor capable of distinguishing goods of appellant as a particular trader from those of others, and is also hit by provisions of Section 9 sub-section (1) C1. (d) of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 – Appeal dismissed. |
please find above the requisite headnotes.
ramesh (Advocate) 09 January 2009
Thank you Mr. Majumder for your effort to submit the head notes.
but AIR citation is also a right one any how once again thank you very much.
AEJAZ AHMED (Legal Consultant/Lawyer) 11 January 2009
DEAR RAMESH,
As per me, either myself or you little bit on mistake about the Citation and year of Judgment. But, the detail Judgment required by you is herewith attached as Word Doc file.
ramesh (Advocate) 11 January 2009
Thank you sir
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
