Advanced Search Results

Arun Kapur Vs. Vikram Kapur and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 39, Rule 4; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 9; Arbitration Act - Sections 5, 16 and 17; Companies Act

Reported in : AIR2002Delhi420; 95(2002)DLT42; 2002(61)DRJ495a

Advocate for Respondent : Prag P. Tripathi and ; A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advs., ; O.P. Khai

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the main petition as well as the application under Order 39 Rule CPC. 2. In this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...

Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 15(1), 15(2), 15(3), 17 18, 21, 23, 27, 28, 28(3), 29, 29(2), 30(1), 33, 48, 49, 78 and 79; Companies Act, 1956; Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955; Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules; Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976; Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17(1) and 17(2); Copyright Act - Sections 63; ;Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 417, 419, 420 and 486; ;Indian Partnership Act

Reported in : AIR2006SC3304; 2006(6)ALD36(SC); 2007(1)ALLMR(SC)402; (2007)1GLR594; JT2006(8)SC393; 2006(33)PTC281(SC); 2006(8)SCALE631; (2006)8SCC726

Advocate for Respondent : F.S. Nariman, ; Abhishek M. Singhvi and ; Mihir Thakore,

ORDER ON THE APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION 9. By a judgment and order dated 17.03.2000, the learned Trial Judge opined that the plaintiff company was the owner of the trademark. It was further held that the defendants...

Sameer Gehlauat Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Commercial

Acts : Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957

Reported in : 78(1999)DLT775

Advocate for Respondent : Madhu Tewatia, Adv. for Respondent No. 1, ; A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. and ;

K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. On 11.11.1998 the second respondent put up for auction the retail outlet at Rangpuri, NH-8, Delhi Gurgaon Road, New Delhi. The petitioner was the highest bidder and the same was accepted. The...

N.R. Ajwani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 18, 19, 63, 69, 117(3), 154, 160(4) and 165; Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 17, 23, 23(5), 82(3) and 147A; Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923 - Sections 3, 3(1) and 5; Army Pension Regulations, 1961 - Regulations 3 and 22; Constitution of India - Articles 1, 11, 14, 19(1), 19(5), 21, 31(1), 33, 53, 74, 74(1), 77, 154, 163(1), 226, 309, 310, 310(1), 311, 311(2) and 356; Air Force Act, 1950 - Sections 18 and 19; Air Force Rules, 1969 - Rule 16; Railway Establishment Code - Rules 148, 148(3), 149 and 149(3); Government of India Act, 1919 - Sections 96B; Constitution of India (Fiftieth Amendment) Act, 1984

Reported in : 95(2002)DLT770

Advocate for Respondent : A.M. Singhvi, Addl. Solicitor General, ; Rakesh Tikki, ; Ra

K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The appellants in the Latent Patent Appeals, the petitioner in C.W.P. 3063/95 and the petitioner in C.W.P. 4082/95 have come forward with a grievance that their services have been dispensed with by...

Siemens Ltd. Vs. Hscc (India) Ltd. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Commercial

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 12, 14, 19 and 226

Reported in : 2007(1)CTLJ453(Del)

Advocate for Respondent : Saurabh Mishra, Adv. for Respondent No. 1, Naveen Sharma, Adv. for Respondent No. 2 and ; A.M. Singhvi,

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the action of the Respondent No. 1 M/s HSCC (India) Ltd. and the Respondent No. 2 Government of Madhya Pradesh,...

Kishan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : CriminalNarcotics

Acts : Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 3, 8, 21, 22, 29, 30 and 67; Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 108; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 116

Reported in : 1995CriLJ3947

Advocate for Respondent : S.M. Singhvi, Public Prosecutor

ORDERRajendra Saxena, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order dt. 4-2-94, whereby the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases (Sessions Judge),Jaisalmer ordered for framing charge against the accused petitioner for the offence Under Section 29...

Devi Chand and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : CriminalConstitution

Acts : Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 7, 16, 16A, 17(1), 20 and 20A; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 244, 245(1), 246, 313, and 482; Constitution of India - Article 21

Reported in : 1995CriLJ2977; 1995(2)WLC64

Advocate for Respondent : S.M. Singhvi, Public Prosecutor

ORDERRajendra Saxena, J.1. The aforementioned Criminal Revision Petitions/Misc. petition have been preferred against the order dated 20-8-1993 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur, whereby he framed charge against the petitioners for...

Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages P. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Sarabhjit Singh an ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : CompanyCivil

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 169, 190, 195 and 284; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 20

Reported in : [1996]86CompCas842(P& H); (1995)109PLR662

Advocate for Respondent : A.M. Singhvi and; Harbhagwan Singh, Senior Advs.,; S. Mi

V.K. Jhanji, J.1. This shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 1109 of 1994 and also application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for...

Sh. Ganesh Prasad Dube Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Reported in : AIR1972SC2396; 1973(0)BLJR422; (1971)1SCC691; [1971]3SCR726

Advocate for Respondent : L.M. Singhvi, ; U.P. Singh, ; Basudeva Prasad, ;

C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this appeal, on certificate, the appellant challenges the order dated February 17, 1969 of the Patna High Court dismissing summarily C.W.J.C. No. 153 of 1969 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.2....

Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commiss ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Electricity

Acts : Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Sections 3, 5, 12, 22(1), 22B and 22B(1); Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 2, 2(15), 2(17), 2(4), 2(70), 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10(1), 10(2), 10(3), 11, 11(1), 11(2), 12, 12(2), 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 33, 55(2), 55(3), 42, 42(2), 60, 62(1), 62(2), 62(95), 73, 76(1), 81(1), 81(2), 82, 83, 86, 86(1), 125, 128(1), 128(6), 128(7), 128(8), 129 and 181; Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 1959; Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 - Sections 22(1) and 22; Electricity Supply Act, 1948 - Sections 43, 43A, 44, 46 and 49; Reforms Act; Essential Commodities Act, 1955; Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970 - Sections 488; Companies Act - Sections 255 and 256; Constitution of India - Article 19(1); MERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulati

Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR2966; 2009LC(SC)246; 2009(5)LC2440(SC)

Advocate for Respondent : R.F. Nariman, ; Ramji Srinivasan, ; A.M. Singhvi, ;

ORDER OF THE COMMISSION35. The Commission passed a fairly detailed order. It took into consideration the factual matrix ; the nature of agreements ; submissions of BEST; its earlier orders ; contentions raised by BEST in...