If a party using the deceptively similar name only for a single shop and not spreading its business by use of that particular name then also that party could be stopped from using the tradename of other company. This is given in M/s Bikanervala v. M/s Aggarwal Bikanerwala[2] where the respondent was running a sweet shop in with the name of AGGARWAL BIKANERVALA and the plaintiff was using the name BIKANERVALA from 1981 and also got registered it in the year 1992. hence they applied for permanent injunction over the use of the name AGGARWAL BIKANERWALA for the sweet shop by the defendant. Court held in favour of the plaintiff and stopped defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in food articles for human consumption under the impugned trade mark/trade name/infringing artistic label 'AGGARWAL BIKANER WALA' or from using any trade mark/trade name/infringing artistic work containing the name/mark 'BIKANER WALA/BIKANERVALA' or any other name/mark/artistic work which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark 'BIKANERVALA'.

whether postmortem report is a pre requisite to award compensation under m.v.act. the deceased sustained grivieous injury at irignzhakuda, in kerela. F.I.R. filled at irignzhakuda police station. but he died after two years from the date of accident, due to the consequences of the accident at pattukkottai, tamilnadu. but postmortem  could not be conducted because of lack of communication between pattukkottai police station and irignzhakuda police station. only supportive evidence are medical reports and evidence of docter who gave treatment to him. whether  he entitled to compensation under m.v.act? is there any case law to that effect?

the  question of interim maintenance is to be decided. the husband was a lecturar. His salary was Rs 6420/- p m. In this mater Rs.1000/- p m maintenance is awarded and legal expenses of  rs. 1000/- is also awarded separately

PARTITION BY WICH PARTITION IS ACKNOWLEDGED IT IS NOT METES AND BOUND NO REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENT IS NECESSORY.

P & H HC or Hon. Supreme Court which support -
Punjab agricultural produce marketing act 1961
Punjab agricultural produce marketing Rules 1962 

where the applicant sought information of the trials of B.T. Brinjal, related Allergen and Toxicity Studies and minutes of the committee meetings from the Department of Bio-technology. The toxicity & allergenic levels found on trials of transgenic BT Brinjal, okra, mustard & rice that were approved and the related data submitted to department of Biotechnology in respect to trials. Direction was issued by CIC to disclose the information. When challenged in High Court, Maharashtra Hybrid seeds primary contention was that “this was confidential trade secrets & intellectual property” so need to be withheld. Stay was granted within a month of the order of the CIC.                     

tirunelveli district

juddgment renderd on 193 indian penal code 

Section 190*, Criminal Procedure Code is the section dealing with the jurisdiction of Magistrates to take COGNIZANCE of an offence  on a complaint etc. It says that a Magistrate “may” take COGNIZANCE of an offence on a complaint . Though the section id worded as if it were permissive , it does not appear that the intention of the legislature was to give DISCRETION to Magistrate  in the matter of taking COGNIZANCE of an offence on a complaint. If a complaint discloses an offence over which the magistrate  has jurisdiction  and his jurisdiction over it is not barred by a statutory provision such as contained in S. 195, Criminal P.C.. he seems to be bound to take COGNIZANCE. There is nothing in the section to suggest that he can refuse to take COGNIZANCE  . It may be that he will have no data on the basis of which he can decide whether to take COGNIZANCE or not,but it seems that even if there are some data , it is not open to him to refuse to take COGNIZANCE.( Chitto Adhikari v Vidya Bhushan Sharma AIR 1952 All 455 at 456)

correction of seniority in Gradation list