Delhi Court July 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 15 of about 155 results (0.021 seconds)Modern Suitings Ltd. Vs. Jugal Kishore and Sons and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT277
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) On 26th February, 1992, an award was made by the Arbitrators, who were appointed as such by the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Registered), to whom the disputes, which had arisen amongst the claimants and respondents I and 2 were referred. The claimant moved an application seeking directions against the Arbitrators as also the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Register) to file the award in Court and then to pass decree in terms thereof. After notice the award was filed in Court along with the proceedings recorded by the Arbitrators. Respondents 1 and 2 chosen to prefer objections to the award. (2) Respondents have alleged that Rules 36 and 37 of the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association Rules and Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') have not been followed. As per Rule 36, only the Members of the Association are entitled to refer their disputes to the Association to be decided by the process of arbitration. A non-member is not e...
Tag this Judgment!Simba F.R.P. (P) Ltd. Vs. Department of Tourism, Lucknow, Uttar Prades ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)473; 1995(34)DRJ273
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner by this civil revision petition is assailing the order dated 27.1.1994, by which the learned Additional District Judge directed the suit to be registered as an ordinary suit and declined the prayer of the petitioner for trial of the suit under Order xxxvii of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision petition had been admitted to hearing on 20.3.1995. The facts in brief are as under: (I)The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of Kayaks and Canoes. The respondent i.e. the Department of Tourism, Government of Uttar Pradesh, had invited quotations for the supply of Kayaks and Canoes vide its notification dated 31.12.1990. The petitioner submitted its offer vide letter dated 3.1.1991. The petitioner quoted the prices and stated the terms and conditions in the offer. Some of the terms and conditions that may be noticed arc :- ALL prices are Ex-works, Sikandrabad (U.P.). PRICES prevailing at the time of receipt of...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. NezamuddIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)550; 60(1995)DLT21; 1995(35)DRJ290
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Shri S.M.Nizamuddin has claimed to be freedom fighter. His pension under the Scheme now known as 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme' issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, has been refused. Hence he has approached this Court for issuing of mandamus directing the Government of India to consider his name and consequently to pay the pension to him. (2) The petitioner has based his claim on the ground, that he took active role in freedom struggle. Criminal cases were lodged against him, pursuance to which warrants of arrest were issued. In order to avoid the arrest, he went underground and while he was underground he continued his activities in furtherance to the struggle for freedom. (3) The principles governing the Central Scheme of Pension can be summarised as follows:- A Central Scheme for the grant of pension to freedom fighters and their families from Central Revenues was introduced by the Government of India during the Silver Jubilee Year o...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldip Singh Trading as Saini Spares Vs. S.K. Auto Industries and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT725; 1995(34)DRJ355
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) In the suit, challenging the infringement by the defendants, of the plaintiffs registered trade mark 'SAINI' in relation to the manufacturing and marketing of hydraulic Brake Parts for motor land vehicles, all spare parts for motor land vehicles, oil seals and filters of all kinds, helmet, switches, lighting signals, electric starters, headlights, parts and fittings thereof, for motor land vehicles and the artistic carton/ label with the said trade mark, the plaintiff, by this is seeks to restrain the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in the clutch system containing clutch plates, cover assemblies and lever kit minor for use in the motor land vehicle under the impugned trade mark/carton/label entitled 'SAINI' or any other identical with and/or deceptively similar trade mark/carton/label, pending the hearing and disposal of the suit. (2) The say of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has been using his fanciful trade mark 'S...
Tag this Judgment!Colgate-palmolive Co. and anr. Vs. Sundeep Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ119
N.G. Nandi, J. (1) In a suit seeking to restrain the defendant from in any manner using the mark 'COLLEGIATE' allegedly identical with the plaintiffs' registered trade mark 'COLGATE' and also using the packing, tubes, cartons, bearing a colour scheme, get-up, logo and lay out as represented on 'COLLEGIATE' carton and tube by the defendant, the plaintiff by is No. 7701/94 seeks to restrain the defendant in identical terms pending the hearing and disposal of the suit. (2) The defendant, vide is 8686/94 under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code prays for vacation of the ex parte, ad interim injunction granted vide order dated 1.9.1994. (3) It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is a proprietor of the registered trade mark 'COLGATE' and that the plaintiff has been manufacturing dental cream, selling the same in tube and cartons in red and white. The defendant is alleged to have infringed the plaintiffs' mark 'COLGATE' by using the mark 'COLLEGIATE'. (4) One of the arguments advanced on b...
Tag this Judgment!Sales Tax Officer Vs. Byford Motors Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)933; 60(1995)DLT84
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.(1) This Appeal by the defendant Sales Tax Officer, Ward No. 47, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24th August,1993 in IAs 5606 and 6554/93 in Suit No. 1297/93. By virtue of the said order the learned Single Judge granted ad interim injunction in favor of plaintiff(respondent) against the recovery of sale-tax dues from the appellants for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92.The total amount of sales-tax involved in this case was said to come to Rs. 1,21,15,315. The operation of the impugned order was stayed by the learned Single Judge subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 5 lacs in cash and furnishes security of immoveable properties in a sum of Rs. 20 lacs to the satisfaction of the appellate authority. The learned Single Judge also stated that the plaintiff would be at liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Local Act against the impugned assessment order duri...
Tag this Judgment!Bindal Toys Vs. Gemini Toys
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(2)ARBLR292(Delhi); 1995(34)DRJ285
Usha Mehra, J.(1) M/S Bindal Toys has assailed the order dated 22nd February,1994 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Trade Marks, Delhi (hereinafter called the Registrar). The order has been assailed primarily on the ground that the Registrar while disposing the opposition application of the appellant, ignored the fact that the appellant had been using the said mark since 1st April, 1975. The said mark became distinctive and associated with the goods of the appellant. Now if the respondent is permitted to adopt the impugned trade mark, the common purchaser will be deceived and get confused. The device of globe in both the marks is-identical resides the letters Btm and Gtm will create confusion. Moreover, the get-up, make- up and lettering style of the appellant's trade mark and the proposed by respondent have been ignored by the Registrar, hence the appeal. (2) In order to appreciate the contentions raised, the brief facts essential for the determination of the same are that the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Kishore Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)338; 59(1995)DLT416; 1995RLR480
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) Plaintiffs have come up in appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4.8.1989 of the Addl District Judge Delhi directing a suit for recovery of mesne profits and possession over Flat No. 303, Ii Floor, Rohit House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi to be dismissed. (2) Undisputedly, the suit property is owned by the plaintiffs. In the beginning' of July, 1993, then the Regional Iron and Steel Controller, approached the plaintiff No. I for securing on lease the flat in suit for the use of the office of defendant No. 2. Rent at the rate of Rs. 2.60 per sft plus 10 paise per sq feet for lift service charges was agreed upon. Keys of the flat were handed over to defendant No. 2 on 3.7.93. Thereafter rent was paid to the plaintiff from month to month. Last such payment was made for the month of March, 1987. However, no written deed of lease was executed between the plaintiffs and the Union of India. (3) According to the plaintiffs, no deed of lease having been execu...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Rattan Kapahi Vs. Shiv Kumar Kapahi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT460
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The main suit is for partition and the plaintiff claims I /2 share in the suit property which is of an extent of 369.44 sq. yds. I do not want to deal with the facts in detail because the suit itself was filed in 1987 in the lower Court. Subsequently, it was returned on account of question of jurisdiction and the suit came to be numbered in this Court as Suit No. 1054/94 and I am dealing with the prima facie contentions of the parties for the purpose of I.As.(2) I.A.4482/94 is for injunction and the relief is in the following terms :- 'It is, thereforee, respectfully prayed that by an ex-parte order the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 be restrained from alienating and/or parting with possession, disposing of creating any third interests in respect of the property bearing No. 70, measuring369.44 sq. yds. in Motia Khan, Dump Scheme, M.M. Road, now known as Rani Jhansi Road. That by an ex-parte order the defendant Nos. I and 2 be further restrained from raising any construct...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanti Prashad Gupta Vs. Deep Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT737; 1995(35)DRJ85
N.G. Nandi, J. (1) By I.A. No. 574/94 under Order 9 Rule 13 Cpc, the applicants (original defendants No.1 to 6) pray for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 26.5.1993 passed in favor of the opponent (original plaintiff). By I.A. No. 3640/95 under Section 5 of Limitation Act, these applicants also pray for condensation of delay caused in filing is No. 574/94 if the court comes to the conclusion that I.A. 574/94 is barred by time. (2) The opponent (original plaintiff) filed Suit No. 24/92 against these applicants and two other defendants for recovery of certain amount and permanent injunction; that the said suit came to be decreed ex parte on 26.5.1993 against these applicants and that as far as these applicants are concerned, the summons of the suit, attempted to be served by Registered Ad Post, returned with the endorsement 'Refused' whereas the summons by ordinary process, as per the endorsement on the summons, were accepted by the brothers of the defendants, except one of the def...
Tag this Judgment!