Delhi Court July 1992 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.
Weston Electronics Ltd. Vs. Weston Industries and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi340; 1992(23)DRJ443
ORDER1. This is a suit filed by Weston Electronics Limited, hereinafter called the plaintiff for permanent injunction and rendition of account on the ground that in 1986 the plaintiff adopted the trade mark WESTON in respect of goods of its manufacture and sale. The trademark Weston also forms an essential and key portion of the trading style of the plaintiff company. The trademark Weston is in continuous, regular and extensive use since the year 1966. The sale of the plaintiff in respect of its goods under the trademark Weston during the past has exceeded Rs. 70 crores. The trademark Weston has been widely advertised through various media including insertions in newspapers, magazines, jingles on television, screening of commercial films, distribution of free gifts etc. The plaintiff has spent Rs. 3 crores on popularising the trademark Weston. By virtue of long, established and continuous user of the trade mark Weston by the plaintiffs, coupled with vast publicity, the said trade mark ...
Arti Sukhdev Kashyap and ors. Vs. Daya Kishore Arora
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ285; 1992RLR442
C.L. Chaudhry, J. (1) The defendant has filed this application under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside ex parte proceedings taken against the defendant. is stated that the case was noticed by the counsel for the defendant on 3.4.1992 as Item No.4 in Short Cause List of this Court and when the counsel appeared before the court he was informed that the defendant had been proceeded ex parte and ex parte evidence had been recorded in the case, arguments had been heard, the case had been reserved for pronouncing judgment. From the court record it transpired that the dales of trial in this case were fixed from 24.1.1992 to 28.1.1992. The case was listed before the court on 24.1.1992. 27.1.1992, 28.1.1992. and 29.1.1992 and this court recorded exparte evidence of the plaintiff on 28.1.1992 and 29.1.1992. The defendant in this case was availing the services of Shri Raghubir Malhotra. Advocate who was conducting his case and he informed the defendant th...
Maya Devi and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT445; 1992(23)DRJ559
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 358/78, 359/78, 361/78, 363/78, 364/78, 374/78, 391/78, 400/78, 128/79, 155/79, 263/79, 361.79, 370/79, 486/79 and 223/80. (2) Land of the appellants which was situated in the Village Rangpuri Malikpur Kohi was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the 'Act') and in the present appeals the claim of the appellants is that the amount of compensation which has been awarded should be enhanced. (3) A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 3rd December, 1971 seeking to acquire the land in this village for planned development (development of Palam Airport). By the said Notification, apart from the Village in question there was land in a number of other villages also which was sought to be acquired and those villages were Nangal Dewat and Shahbad Mohammedpur. The land Acquisition Collector divided the land into two different blocks viz.. Block A and Block B. In respect of Block A, the ma...
Rajinder Kumar Vs. R.K. Bajaj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1992
Reported in: 1992RLR446
C.L. Chaudhry, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed this suit seeking a decree of declaration that the judgment and decree dated 9.11.1989 passed in S. No. 2713/89 by this Court was obtained by collusion, fraud and is illegal and void and does not confer or create any right, title or interest in favor of defendants 1, 2 & 4 in property bearing No. A-167. defense Colony. (2) The allegations made in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a tenant on the ground floor of House No. A-167, defense Colony .y since 1969, on monthly rent of Rs. 250.00. Bhagwan Dass was the original owner of the house and he sold it to Dev Raj Bajaj, detent. No. 3, vide sale deed d..ted 10.9.1969. The plaintiff attorney in favor of deft. 3 at the instance of the previous owner, and deft. 3, thereafter, started receiving monthly rent from the plaintiff. Deft. 3, immediately after the purchase of the premises in question, with ulterior motive and design and to coerce the plaintiff to quit from the premises filed an evicti...
Jitender Mohan Gupta Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ4016; 1992(3)Crimes269; 48(1992)DLT251; 1992(23)DRJ509; ILR1993Delhi359
Usha Mehra, J.1. Jitendra Mohan Gupta by this petition wants that first information report bearing No. 256/91 lodged with the Police Station Seema Puri under section 304-A, IPC be quashed. 2. In nutshell the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the President of 'Aggarwal Sanghathan Dilshad Garden'. The said Association organized a 'Haryali Teej Mela' at C Block Central Park, Dilshad Garden, Delhi on 11th and 12th August, 1991. The said park belongs to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the petitioner took it on hire from the MCD. Information of organising the said Teej Mela was also given to the police in advance. It is further the case of the prosecution that a girl aged about 3 years named Shruti Malhotra drowned in the underground water-tank of Fire Brigade at about 9.45 P.M. on 12th August, 1991 on account of the negligence of the petitioner. The petitioner had not covered the manhole as a result of which this incident took place. Hence, the case against him. 3. Pe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.N. Anand Construction P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR490(Delhi)
1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that, even if the liability of Rs. 4,49,600 shown in the balance-sheet on account of purchase of plot of land is not genuine, the addition cannot be made to the declared income simply because no deduction had been claimed for the cost of land in the profit and loss account for the year under consideration ?' 2. In this case, the assessed had claimed that it has purchased land for a sum of Rs. 4,49,600 but the price of the same had not been paid. The land was alleged to have been purchased from one P. K. Tripathi. The Income-tax Officer, in the assessment order, came to the conclusion that the documents produced by the assessed were not genuine and that the assessed had not been able to show that the liability of Rs. 4,49,600 in favor of the assessed was genuine. It then held that this am...
H.C.L. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1992
Reported in: [1993]199ITR291(Delhi)
1. The petitioner filed a return of income for the assessment year 1989-90 on August 25, 1989, through an authorised representative. However, the petitioner appended a note stating that the return claiming that the payments made to foreign buyers do not attract the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the premises, payments made to foreign collaborators on account of lump sum consideration for technical know how are neither royalty nor even for technical services under the provisions section 9 and section 9. The Income-tax Officer was not satisfied and was of the opinion that lump sum consideration paid to the foreign collaborators for technical services were chargeable to income-tax. The amount paid for technical know-how was to the tune of Rs. 36,69,883. For the aforesaid reasons, the Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that it is a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. 2. This issue of notice has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. One of the m...
T.D. Dhingra Vs. Pritam Rai Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT208
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) The main grievance against the impugned order is that the respondent who is admittedly owner and landlord of the premises in dispute, had taken British Citizenship and on his return to India has not surrendered that citizenship and applied for Indian citizenship, as such it could not be presumed that he is likely to acquire the premises for his personal bonafide requirement since he is not likely to stay in India for a long time. The other contention against the impugned order is that the respondent had reasonably suitable alternative accommodation available to him for residence inasmuch as he owns another property i.e. half of 15/16westPatelNagar, New Delhi.(2) I have gone through the impugned order and find that both the points have been duly dealt with by the Trial Court. Counsel has not been able to point out any provision of law whereby an Indian who had acquired foreign citizenship is disentitled to enjoy residence in his own property in India when he chooses to...
Sukhdev Singh Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)Crimes1175; 48(1992)DLT236; 1992(24)DRJ104
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Four appeals have been filed by S/Shri Sukhdev Singh, Sukhwant Singh. Khalil and Amrit Pal Singh, against the judgment passed by Shri S.L. Bhyana, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 16.1.92, convicting the appellants and Sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years each, and further to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. - for one month each. Since the appeals are against one common judgment and the question of law and facts in all the appeals are similar, thereforee, they are being disposed of by one common order.(2) It is against this judgment that the appellants have come up in the appeal challenging the order of their conviction dated 16.1.92, passed by Shn S.L. Bhyana, Addl. Session Judge, Delhi, inter alias on the ground that they have been convicted and sentenced on the basis of their confessions which are not admissible in law. Moreover on account of the refusal of Test Identif...
Ranjit Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT138; 1992(24)DRJ365
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) All these four appeals can be disposed of by one judgment as they arise out of the common Award given under Land Acquisition Act 1894 (For short 'the Act') Rfa Nos. 811/88, 191/89 and 193/89. I have been filed by the claimants and Rfa 188/89 by the Union of India. All these appeals have been filed under Section 54 of the Act and are against the judgment dated 26.9.1988 of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi on a reference made to him under Section 18 of the Act. (2) Land in question is situated in village Ghewra. Notifications under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Act were all issued on 18.3.1985. The purpose for acquisition of the land given was for construction of Lpg bottling plant. Land measured 463 bighas 5 biswas. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 19.7.85. it being Award No. 12/1985-86. He divided the land into three categories A, and C and fixed market value at the rate of Rs.l4,000.00 , Rs.l2.000.00 and Rs.l0,000.00 per bigha respectively ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »