Delhi Court April 1972 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Metro Playing Card Co. Vs. Wazir Chand Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi248
Prakash Narain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court sitting on the original side whereby an interim injunction was issued against the appellant on a motion by the respondent.2. The respondent/Plaintiff manufactures and sells playing cards. On 8th February, 1968, the respondent/Plaintiff registered under No. 233581 in Class 16 a trade mark consisting of the device of a tractor and the word 'tractor' for his playing cards. The appellant defendant also trades in playing cards and it is alleged by the respondent that early in 1971 he came to know that the appellant had adopted the trade mark 'Ferguson' in relation to its playing cards and was marketing the same under that name also using the device of a tractor on the back of the playing cards. The respondent thereforee, brought an action against the appellant seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant from infringing the registered trade mark of the respondent and passing off ...
Daryodh Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi58; 9(1973)DLT28
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) This appeal is against the award of an Additional District Judge, Delhi, on a reference made under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.(2) Daryodh Singh is the appellant. He was in possession of 42 Bighas of Land situated in village Rajpur Chhawni (Delhi) as a tenant. The land, on a portion of which some trees had been planted and there were some superstructures, belonged to Goverdhan Dass Motilal Mohtta Trust, Mohd. Yusuf, C. S. Jaitley, D. S. Jaitley and V. S. Jaitley. (3) On July 17, 1956 the owners of the land instituted a suit for ejectment of Daryodh Singh from the land and for recovery of arrears of lent. While that suit was pending in the court of the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Delhi, the parties entered into a compromise. In terms of that compromise, dated July 30, 1959 the ejectment of the tenant was ordered but the plaintiffs were required to pay an amoun of Rs. 4,500.00 to the defendant ' two months prior to 15th July, 1960 ', before whic...
Union of India Vs. Qabool Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi780
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The Union of India is aggrieved with the order dated 9-4-1963 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the Landi Acquisition Collector; the claimants tiave filed a Memorandum of Cross-objections praying for further enhancement of compensation. (2) The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 5,600.00 per bigha in respect of the entire area, namely, 40 bighas 16 bids was situate in Khampur; the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 4-1-1956. The acquisition was made for enabling construction of Delhi Transport Service Staff Quarters. (3) On a reference made under section 18 of the Act the learned Additional District Judge fixed the compensation payable in respect of the lands abutting the Patel Nagarroad (which are described as Block 1) at Rs. 15,600.00 per bigba and those not abutting the road (Block II) at Rs. 10,600.00 per bigha. The claim now made, in...
Union of India Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta (Decd.) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi64
Shankar, J.1. This order will dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 79-D of 1963 and 86-D of 1963.2. By Notification dated April 24, 1957. issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. hereafter called 'the Act', the appropriate Government acquired 118 bighas and 12 bids was of land situated in Basaidarapur estate for the Central Dairy under the Milk Supply Scheme. this are included land measuring 4 bighas and 19 bids was forming part of field Nos: 2860/1133/4 situated near Railway Station. Patel Nagar. owned by the appellants in R.F.A. 86 -D of 1963, hereafter called the 'claimants.' The Land Acquisition Collector. by his award dated November 6, 1958. assessed the market price of the acquired land at Rs.3.50 per sq. yd. Dissatisfied with this valuation the claimants applied for reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Additional district Judge. after recording evidence and hearing the parties. assessed market value of the claimant's land at Rs.10/- per sq. ...
The Upper Jamuna Valley Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. the Municipal ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1972
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT148
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) The Upper Jamuna Valley Electricity Supply Company Limited (hereinafter called the Company) was operating as licensee the Delhi Shahdara Electricity Undertaking. The said license was originally granted to M/s. Martin and Company the predecessors in business of M/s. Martin Burn Limited but was duly assigned by them to the Company with the permission of the authorities concerned. The said license was for an initial period of 30 years which expired on the night of 21st/22nd December, 1962. According to the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act. 1910 (hereinafter called the Act) and of the license, the local authority constituted for the licensed area had the right or option to purchase the Company's undertaking on giving at least one year's prior notice. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter called the Muicipality) was constituted pursuant to the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.' On 3rd/lllh October, 1960, the Municipality served ...
Dhan Raj Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ433; 8(1972)DLT180
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) Five petitions (Nos. 33, 35, 51, 62 and 110 of 1969), under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure were referred to a larger Bench by P. S. Safeer, J. and were placed before us for hearing. All the five petitions relate to the sale of Kaju (cashewnuts) by certain shopkeepers to Food Inspectors of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for analysis. On the samples sent to the Public Analysts these were found to be insect-infested to varying extents. Petition No. 33 relates to the case against Shri Dhan Raj from whom Shri B. R. Kochhar, Food Inspector, purchased a quantity of Kaju pieces on October 14, 1968. On one of the samples being sent to Shri Sudhamoy Roy Public Analyst was analysed on October 26, 1968 and according to the report of the Public Analyst dated November 8, 1968, was insect-infested to the extent of 16.2% and was, thereforee, stated to be adulterated. Petition No. 35 is in respect of the case against Shri Pradhan Singh from whom Shri Sohan Lal M...
Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1972
Reported in: 1989(25)LC585(Delhi); 1979(4)ELT581(Del)
Prakash Narain, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Caltex Oil Refinery (India) Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and having its registered office at No. 8, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Bombay-1, has been filed against Union of India, the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad and Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam Division, Visakhapatnam for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondents herein, calling for the records and proceedings of the case and after looking into the question of legality and/or propriety thereof to quash and set aside orders dated 14-6-1965 (Exhibit 'H' to the petition), 3-9-1965 (Exhibit 'I' to the petition), 22-3-1966 (Exhibit 'J' to the petition), and 31-10-1969 (Exhibit 'K' to the petition); (b) for issue of a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or orders against...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›