Delhi Court April 1995 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.
N.R. Dongre and ors. Vs. Whirlpool Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi300; 1995(34)DRJ109
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated October 31, 1994 whereby the application of the respondents (who are plaintiffs in Suit No.1705/94) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code seeking an ad interim injunction restraining the appellants(defendants in the above said suit) from passing off their goods as that of the respondents was allowed and the appellants were restrained from manufacturing, selling, advertising or in any way using the trade mark 'WHIRLPOOL' in any other trade mark deceptively or confusingly similar to the trade mark 'WHIRLPOOL' in respect of their goods. The appeal arises in the following circumstances:-(2) The first respondent which is the first plaintiff in the suit, is an American Corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA. The second respondent a Company registered in India, is a joint venture company established by the first respondent and a company called Sund...
Kirpal Singh Surjeet Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1995
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)405; 1995(33)DRJ476
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) Arguments were heard on the question of grant or otherwise of temporary injunction. During the course of hearing the parties have also addressed the court on the question of valuation, payment of court fees and maintainability of the suit itself. .P#2 (2) The two suits have been filed by the two plaintiffs seeking a declaration that there exists no assessment list and a permanent injunction restraining the recovery or the attempted recovery of the amount of tax levied. Whatever be the phraseology used in the prayer part of the plaint, but in substance these are the reliefs sought for. (3) The learned counsel for the Mcd has disputed the correctness of the valuation made and the court fee paid by the plaintiffs as also the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the grant of ad interim injunction, Challenge has also been laid to the maintainability itself of the suits. It is submitted that the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 ( hereinafter the Dmc Act, for short) is a ...
Kanwal Raj Sadana Vs. D.D. Saigal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT443; 1995(33)DRJ344; 1995RLR406
Arun Kumar. J. (1) This is a second appeal preferred by the tenant against an order of eviction dated 23rd January, 1992 passed against him by the Additional Rent Controller under clause (a) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as the said eviction order was upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal vide its judgment dated 26th September, 1992 passed in an appeal preferred by the tenant. (2) Briefly the facts are that the appellant herein is a tenant under the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.700.00 with respect to premises No.WH-40 Phase-I, Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi. The premises were let out on 17th April, 1978. The rent of Rs.700.00 per month was exclusive of electricity charges which were payable by the tenant separately. The tenancy premises is a basement measuring 666 square feet covered area. The case of the landlord in the eviction petition was that the tenant was irregular in payment of rent ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Rathi and Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT229TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the Order-in-Appeal No. 2412/90, dated 29-11-1990 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. The respondents imported a consignment of fibre glass thread and the goods were assessed under Tariff Heading 70.19 of Customs Tariff Act for basic duty and under Tariff Heading 70.14 of the Central Excise Tariff for the purpose of countervailing duty. Subsequently they filed a refund claim claiming re-assessment under the same Tariff Heading but for the benefit of Central Excise Notification 52/86-C.E. at nil rate of CVD. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim on the ground that to claim exemption under the Notification 52/86 it must be of 100% glass fibre and since in the instant case it consist of 85.6% glass fibre same cannot be considered as wholly made of glass fibre. The Collector (Appeals) has allowed the appeal observing that it can safely be presumed that sample tested has only two constituents...
Union of India Vs. S.M. Aggarwal and 31 ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1995
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)293; 1995(33)DRJ371
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the Union of India aggrieved by the order dated 29 June 1994 of the first respondent Additional District Judge, Delhi, passed under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). By this order the first respondent remanded the matter back to the Estate Officer for fresh decision under section 5 of the Act. As a matter of fact, it is the second time that the first respondent remanded the matter back to the Estate Officer under the Act. Respondents 2 to 32 are shopkeepers admittedly occupying public premises in the lane leading to the Delhi High Court from the Wellesely Road (now Dr. Zakir Husssain Marg) and connecting the same to the Shershah Suri Marg. After proceedings were initiated under the Act against these shopkeepers, the Estate Officer passed an order on 30 November 1993 under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act directing them to v...
Vinod Khanna and ors. Vs. Bakshi Sachdev
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi32; 59(1995)DLT89; 1995RLR431
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) The present appeal by defendants 1,2 & 3 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.5.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 723 /1989 filed by plaintiff/respondent No. 2 and the predecessor- in-interest of respondents No. 1 (a) & 1 (b) for recovery of possession, mesne profits, damages and injunction relating to property No. 5, Golf Links, New Delhi. (2) The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint, in brief, is that the property was let out to M/s. Dynamic Sales Service International Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 19.6.1974 on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000.00 . The written lease agreement in this connection is dated 21.6.1974 but the same was not registered. It is pleaded that after a few months the lease was transferred in favor of defendant No. 1 - namely M/s. Concord International Pvt. Ltd. in pursuance of which the defendant No. 1 became the sole tenant on the same terms and conditions. The defendant No. 2 Along with his family members practically...
Gulshan Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1995
Reported in: [1997]223ITR207(Delhi)
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. By this petition the assessed seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions, stated to be questions of law, to this court for its opinion, relevant to the assessment year 1983-84 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not amount to enhancement of the assessor's income (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) would not result in a new source of income which was neither returned by the assessed nor considered by the Assessing Officer (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal did not err in not appreciating the contention of the asse...
B.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1995
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)322; 1995(33)DRJ380
D.K. Jain, J.(1) The petitioner, who superannuated on 31 August 1992 as Subedar Major/Office Superintendent in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short the CRPF), has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from treating the petitioner as superannuated. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is sought directing the respondents to treat the petitioner in service from 31 August 1992 with extention of service by 5 years. (2) In all there are three respondents. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, is the first respondent Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Director General, Crpf are the second and third respondents respectively. (3) The petitioner joined the Crpf as Lower Division Clerk and was thereafter promoted as Upper Division Clerk in the year 1962. These were civilian (non- combatisation) posts for which the age of superannuation was 58 yea...
B.B. Saxena Vs. Mithlesh Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1995
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)446; 58(1995)DLT520; 1995(33)DRJ569
Arun Kumar, J. (1) The respondent Mithlesh Rani instituted an eviction petition under clause (e) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the present petitioner from the premises No.67, Block F, Kalkaji, New Delhi on the ground that the tenancy premises was required bona fide by the landlady who was also the owner of the premises for the residence of herself and her family members. The petitioner herein is a tenant with respect to the entire premises bearing No.F-67, Kalkaji, New Delhi comprising three rooms, latrine, kitchen, bath and inner and outer courtyards,varandahs etc. The petitioner herein is an old tenant in the premises. The premises was earlier owned by Shri J.C.Taneja who had inducted the petitioner as a tenant in the premises. After the death of J.C.Taneja his son K.C.Taneja sold the premises to the respondent landlady vide registered sale deed dated 7th June 1985. The eviction petit...
Vijay Kumar Vs. Shanti Narain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1995
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT776
Arun Kumar, J. 1. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent claiming to be owner landlord of the premises in suit, namely, 115, State Bank Colony, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi filed an eviction petition against the petitioner herein on or about 8.7.1993 under Clause (e) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as an Act). The respondent herein sought eviction of the petitioner tenant from the suit premises on the ground that the premises were required bona fide by him for his own residence and the residence of his family and that he had no other alternative residential accommodation available with him in Delhi. The summons in the prescribed form were ordered to be issued to the tenant for 18.10.1993, 16.11.1993, 25.11.1993,6.12.1993 and 15.2.1994. The tenant was, however, served by way of publication in the daily 'National Herald'. The summons were published on 23.3.1994. While the next date of hearing...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »