Delhi Court October 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 11 of about 109 results (0.021 seconds)Satish Kumar Mittal Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)354; 60(1995)DLT626
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) This order will dispose of the application underorder6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant. The facts of the case in short are that the plaintiff had made a term deposit in the total sum of-Rs. 6,00,000.00 with defendant No.1 and three term deposit receipts each for the value of Rs. 2,00,000.00 were issued by the defendant-Bank.The said receipts became due for payment on 8/12/1984. When the plaintiff on maturity of the said receipts went to the office of the defendant on 10thDecember, 1984, he was informed that payment cannot be made to the plaintiff on account of certain instructions received from the head office/regional office. The plaintiff, thereforee, filed the present suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the grant of a decree for Rs. 6,27,270.00. Leave to defend the suit was granted to the defendants by order dated 15/01/1987 and the defendants filed the written statement. The case as se...
Tag this Judgment!Chironji Lal Garg Vs. Mohan Singh Chopra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT428; 1995(35)DRJ594
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) The plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 4th October, 1993 have in this application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure prayed for an order of injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from entering into agreement of sale, parting with possession or creating third party interest in respect of property No'.B-7/5, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. In addition, the plaintiffs had also prayed for restraining defendant No.3 from selling by way of auction or otherwise the said property for recovery of the amount due from defendant No.1.(2) An ad interim ex parte order of injunction, as prayed, was granted on 14th March, 1995 against defendants I and 2. In so far as defendant No.3 is concerned, the order, as prayed, was passed subject to plaintiffs' depositing a sum of Rs.50,00,000.00 in the Registry of this Court by 20th March, 1995. (3) That on 31st July, 1995, it was stated at the bar that plaintiff had no...
Tag this Judgment!Glen Raven Mills Inc. Vs. Vaspar Concepts Private Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)569; 60(1995)DLT616; 1996(36)DRJ187
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed this suit on the allegations that the plaintiff is a Corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of North Carolina in the United States of America and is primarily engaged in the manufacture and sale of high duality textiles throughout Unites States and also in other countries of the world. One of its division is Custom Fabrics Division which manufacture Awning, marine and furniture fabrics under its trade mark 'SUNBRELLA'. It is stated that the plaintiff is regarded as an innovative leader in the field of textiles throughout the world and its woven fabrics under the trade mark 'SUNBRELLA' are exceedingly durable and weather resistant and are used for numerous applications such as canopies, flags and banners, active outerware,sportwear, luggage, etc. 'SUNBRELLA' is staled to be an invented word newly and freshly corned by the plaintiff and extensively used and advertised throughout the world. The said trade mark is staled to have bee...
Tag this Judgment!indira Khurana Vs. Prem Prakash
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT633
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The petitioner by this revision petition assails the impugned order dated 9.8.1995 passed by Mr. R.S. Khanna, Guardian Judge, whereby the learned Judge directed the petitioner to send the children; i.e. two daughters to the respondent/father from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays. Further that the respondent would return the children to the petitioner at 6 p.m. on the same day. The above order was passed on the respondent's application for visitation rights. (2) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the learned Guardian Judge allowed the application of the respondent and granted the visitation rights and interim custody to the respondent during that period, without ascertaining the wishes of the children. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the order on the ground that it was the duty of the Guardian Judge to personally meet the children, ascertain their wishes and then only decide whether it would be in we...
Tag this Judgment!Radhika Vickram Tikkoo Vs. Vickram Ravi Tikkoo
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)557; 60(1995)DLT666; I(1996)DMC422; 1995(35)DRJ423
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) This revision petition has been filed by Mrs. Radhika Vickram Tikkoo, assailing the order dated 14-8-1995, of Mr. A.K. Pathak, Additional District Judge, by which he allowed the application of the respondent father and directed the child to be readmitted to American Embassy School, where he was studying, prior to being withdrawn by the petitioner and admitted to Vasant Valley School. The learned Additional District Judge, further directed the respondent to arrange funds for payment of fees of the American Embassy School, in short (AES) within a week.(2) The revision petition had come up for admission on 24-8-1995, when the operation of the impugned order was stayed and the petition was directed to be listed for hearing after completion of pleadings. I have been addressed at length by Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate on behalf of the respondent. Parties have filed on record, the pleadings and documents in th...
Tag this Judgment!Mitaso Appliances Ltd. Vs. Mehta Zinabhai Bhimji Bhai
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)386; 61(1996)DLT593; 1995(35)DRJ299
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) The plaintiff claiming itself to be the registered proprietor of the trade mark 'MITASO under No.404136 in respect of installations for heating, steam generating, cooking, including Lpg gas stoves, geysers and electrical household equipments, fans, hot plates, toasters, etc. and parts and fittings thereof, has filed this suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing with goods item and all other goods under the trade mark 'MITASO' or any other trade mark identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark 'MITASO', which may amount to infringement of the aforesaid trade mark No.404136. (2) The case of the plaintiff in short is that it being the proprietor of the registered trade mark 'MITASO' and its being first adopter, originator and true owner, is entitled to its exclusive use. It is stated that the plaintiff has given wide publicity to its trade mark 'MITASO' and its goods under the aforesaid t...
Tag this Judgment!L.M.L. Limited Vs. Saraswati Trading Company Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ233
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) The Lml Limited is a company engaged in manufacturing of scooters. A proposal for conversion of the company into a joint venture of the Indian Promoters and Piaggio was prepared and placed before the financial institutions and banks and more particularly to the Industrial Finance Corporation of India. Lml Fibres and Prakati Synthetics Limited (PSL) were the subsidiary companies of Lml Limited. Lml Limited - the plaintiff No.1 also had a fibre division besides the main business of manufacturing of scooters. The proposal of the plaintiff No.1 company for conversion of the company into a joint venture was approved by the Industrial Finance Corporation of India by its letter dated 13th August, 1990 on the terms and conditions contained in the said letter. It appears at the relevant time and for sometimes even thereafter defendant No.4 continued to be a Director of the plaintiff No.1. The institutions and banks also conveyed approval to the proposal for transfer/sale of...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok K. Mittal Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ673
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) The petitioner has sought writ of certiorari seeking quashment of the decision dated July 22, 1995 of respondent No. 3, the Governing Body of Hindu College, by which ignoring; the recommendations made by the Selection Committee recommending the name of the petitioner for the post of Principal of the said B college, had directed the issuance of fresh advertisement for recruitment to the said post and for directions to the Governing Body to forward the report of the statutory Selection Committee dated July 18. 1995 to Delhi University for further consideration in accordance with the statutory Ordinance of the Delhi University. (2) The Hindu College is one of the prestigious colleges of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and enjoys a high academic reputation as only students securing very high percentage of marks in various subjects in Senior Higher Secondary Examination are granted admission to various subjects in this college. (3) The post of Principal in this co...
Tag this Judgment!Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd. Vs. Maya Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ169
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) Realizing thus the importance of home, the legislators in their wisdom amended Delhi Rent Control Act for providing certain class of people speedy and expeditious trial of their cases in order to enable them to secure possession over the tenanted accommodation and thus to have roofs over their heads. Thus they incorporated Sections 14-A, 14-B, 14-C, 14-D in Delhi Rent Control Act by Act No. 57 of 1988. (2) The respondent herein who is a retired government servant availed of the said opportunity and came forward with a petition under Section 14-C for recovery of possession over premises bearing No. F-8/18, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, shown in the plan Ext. Ph annexed with the petition. (3) While the said petition was pending respondent/petitioner ( hereinafter referred to as the respondent for the sake of brevity ) moved an application under Order Xii Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was allowed vide order dated July 17,1995 and an order of ev...
Tag this Judgment!