Delhi Court November 1993 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.
Karan Industries and ors. Vs. D.C.M. Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)637; 53(1994)DLT284; 1993(27)DRJ528
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is an application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 Cpc for grant of ad interim injunction against the defendants praying as under:- '(A)attach property No.25 Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi and Industrial Unit of D.C.M.Engineering Products, with Plant and Machinery at Village Asron, District Hoshiarpur, Near Ropar, Punjab and/or in the alternative direct the defendants to furnish adequate security, sufficient to satisfy the decree to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court; (b) restrain the defendants, their servants, agents and assigns from either using for manufacturing, aleinating, parting with possession or in any other manner transferring by sale or otherwise, 7 patterns of the Plaintiffs and the castings made there from; (c) restrain the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 from leaving the Local Limits of jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court without prior permission of this Hon'ble Court; (d) pass an ad interim exparte order in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (...
Dharam Dir and ors. Vs. Ancha Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1993
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)601; 53(1994)DLT191; 1994RLR31
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) In a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act) the plaintiff also sought a decree for mesne profits/damages, and the learned Additional District Judge granted both the reliefs. Hence this petition seeking to revise the judgment and the decree. (2) Mr. J.M. Lal, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has been brief but incisive. As per him Section 6 of the Act being a very special Section giving a special and summary relief, the claim for damages/manse profits cannot be joined in a suit under it and that as the respondent did claim damages/manse profits also Along with a decree for possession in her suit under Section 6 of the Act, it virtually became a title suit and outside the jurisdiction of Section 6 and that consequently, the impugned decree for possession and for damages renders the whole decree bad and liable to be set aside altogether. In support he has relied upon Tilak Chandra Doss v. Fatik Chandra ...
VipIn Babbar Vs. Saroj Satija
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1993
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT101
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This is an application for cancellation of bail of the respondent No. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected by R.L. Gupta, J. on January 25, 1993. He points out that on the date the anticipatory bail was rejected, challan had already been filed against the accused persons including the petitioner. He submits that in the order of R.L. Gupta, J., it was observed that the prima facie the Statement of Renu, sister of the deceased makes out a clear case of involvement of the petitioner in the crime. Learned Counsel urges that in view of the observation of Gupta, J' the Metropolitan Magistrate was not right in granting interim bail to the petitioner on February 11,1993. He points out that in the order of Metropolitan Magistrate he has observed that the statement of Renu seems to be quite vague. (2) It was not right for the Metropolitan Magistrate to have granted interim bail to the petitioner especially when...
Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft and Another Vs. Hybo Hindustan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Delhi239; 1994RLR79
ORDER1. I have heard the counsel for the defendant in extenso. Counsel for the defendant has referred to a large number of cases as to why the injunction should be refused in this case.2. The mark and word in the instant case is 'Benz' and 'Three Pointed Human Being in a Ring'.3. The word 'Benz' has been associated with a Car ever since I remember. This car had a device upon it; a three pointed star in a circle/ring. Both, the name and the device, have always, in my memory, been inextricably linked. I am unable to ignore this connection.4. It was, however, registered in India in 1951. It is one of the most famous marks of the world.5. I think it will be a great perversion of the law relating to Trade Marks and Designs, if a mark of the order of the 'Mercedes Benz', its symbol, a three pointed star, is humbled by indiscriminate colourable imitation by all or anyone; whether they are persons, who make undergarments like the defendant, or any one else. Such a mark is not up for grabs -- n...
Ganga Prasad Vs. Shanti Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1993
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT322
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The petitioner is the defendant in a suit for possession. On 5th August, 1991 his examination-in-chief was concluded and thereafter he was cross-examined but only partly. The case was adjourned to 3rd October, 1991 for his remaining cross-examination as well as for his other evidence. Almost after an year, i.e. on July 14, 1992 the defendant moved an application praying that his statement recorded in his cross-examination on August 5, 1991 be expunged on the ground that on that day he was not medically fit being a heart patient and consequently could not give coherent answers to the questions put to him. It so happened that on 20th July, 1992 the learned trial judge by his order closed the evidence of the defendant excepting the statement of the defendant himself. The defendant moved an application for setting aside that order too. The learned Subordinate Judge by his impugned order dismissed both the applications. Hence this revision petition. (2) The learned Couns...
Rajive Goyal and ors. Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)1140; 1993(27)DRJ242
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the seven petitioners, who are students and have qualified for admission to M.B.B.S. Course in Delhi University seek a declaration that seats falling vacant in the medical colleges in Delhi be given on merit to them as per their choice and not to those students who are on the waiting list and are less meritorious. (2) We issued notice to the respondents, who number five, to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 are respectively the Vice Chancellor, the Registrar and the Dean, Faculty of Medical Sciences of the University of Delhi, and the fifth respondent is the Union of India through the Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Answer to show cause notice has been filed by respondents I to 4. We have heard the matter, issue rule D.B. and proceed to dispose of the matter at this stage itself. (3) Bulletin of Information for the session 1993 for under-graduate d...
Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft and anr. Vs. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1993
Reported in: 1993(27)DRJ615
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) I have heard the counsel for the defendant in extenso. Counsel for the defendant has referred to a large number of cases as to why the injunction should be refused in this case. (2) The mark and word in the instant case is 'Mercedes'. (3) The words 'Mercedes Benz' have been associated with a Car ever since I remember. This car had a device upon it; a three pointed star in a circle/ring. Both, the name and the device, have always, in my memory, been inextricably linked. I am unable to ignore this connection. (4) It was,however,registeredinlndiain 1951. It is one of the most famous marks of the world. (5) I think it will be a great perversion of the law relating to Trade Marks and Designs, if a mark of the order of the 'Mercedes Benz', three pointed star, or the flying lady of Rolls Royce, are humbled by indiscriminate colourable imitation by all or anyone; whether they are persons who make flasks, kitchen utensils including casseroles, like the defendant, or any ...
Ashok Kohli Vs. Neelam Kohli
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1993
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT290; I(1994)DMC28; (1993)105PLR50
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The question raised is as to whether one of the parties to a joint petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act can withdraw its consent and if so, is the Court bound to act on it.? (2) First a brief resume' of the facts. ON February 18, 1983 the parties to the petition entered into wedlock. On December 9, 1986 they were blessed with a daughter. In January 1991 they separated. They are still not living together. On February 11, 1992 they moved a joint petition under Sub-section (1) of Section 13B. It was followed by a joint motion under Sub-section (2). However, before the said joint motion could be disposed of, the wife moved an application withdrawing her consent. Faced with this the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the petition. Hence this petition by the husband. What further remains to be noticed is that despite service the wife has not cared to come forward and contest the petition.(3) Learning on two judgments of this Court in Chander Kanta...
Ferruccio Sias and anr. Vs. Jai Manga Ram Mukhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)713; 1994(28)DRJ143
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) This suit for damages, declaration and injunction was filed by the plaintiff Mr. Femiccio Sias, staling that he is whole-time Director in the Company, known as Sae (India) Limited. The persons who are sued for damages, declaration and injunction, are defendants No. 1 to 11. All of whom were Directors and/or employees of Sae (India) Limited.(2) The plaintiff asserted that the present suit is directed against the conspiracy and tortious action of defendants No. 1 to 7, and against their mala fide, unauthorised and illegal activities. It was asserted that these actions are detrimental to the interest of Sae (India) Limited and its shareholders; that the said the defendants were usurping the control of the company, and that presently their interest is directly in. (3) The important fact which has to be kept in mind, is that it was asserted in the plaint itself, that Sae (India) Limited is an existing Company, incorporated under the Companies Act Vii of 1913. ltwasinc...
State Vs. NitIn Shah
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)742; 1994CriLJ2262; 53(1994)DLT497; 1993(27)DRJ524
S.C. Jain, J. (1) This is a petition filed by the State through its Standing Counsel.Shri P.S. Sharma for the cancellation of bail of the accused Nitin Shah, which was granted by Shri B.S. Chaudhary, the then Additional Sessions Judge,Shahdara in case Fir No. 258/92 under Sections 302, 120B and 341.P.C. Police Station Shakar Pur,Delhi on 13.10.1992. In brief the facts of the case, as are apparent on record, are that Shri Lalit Kumar Suneja, was working as distributor at Delhi of M/s Shivnit Enterprises, a proprietary concern of Mr.Nitin Shah, the accused. It is alleged that Mr. Nitin Shah had terminated the appointment of the said Mr. Suneja, as a distributor, which gave rise to disputes and differences between them. According to Mr. Nitin Shah, the accused, the deceased was demanding exhorbitant sums of money from him, the figure of which varied on every occasion, which he claimed were due from the said concern, M/s Shivnit Enterprises to him. (2) As per the prosecution case, Mr. Niti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »