Delhi Court July 1995 Judgments

M/S. Bindal Toys Vs. M/S. Gemini Toys

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1996Delhi161

ORDER1. 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 besides 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 byrespondent 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 lodged an o...

Ten Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)609; 1995CriLJ4129; 59(1995)DLT699; 1995(34)DRJ478

P.K. Bahri, J.1. An Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, vide his judgment dated November 13, 1990, has convicted the appellant Ten Singh for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has acquitted his co-accused Bir Singh on the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide Subsequent order dated November 14, 1990, he has sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Ten Singh has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentences. 2. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Mohd. Ishrafil was at the relevant time employed as a driver in a truck belonging to Vijay Kumar PW 7 whereas Makar Dhwaj PW 4, the only material witness in this case, who claims to be eye witness, was also working as a driver in a truck belonging to cousin of V...

Prakash Chand and Sons Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 59(1995)DLT669

S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) The Arbitrator Mr. V. Nainani filed in Court this award made and published by him on 26th September, 1991 in the disputes between the parties referred to him under agreement No. 55/EE/PWD-19/DA/ 88-89 relating to the work of construction of 100 bedded hospital in Khichripur, Delhi. Notice of filing of award was given to the parties and objections to the same have been filed by the respondent-Union of India.(2) In its objections petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, it has been alleged that the award passed by the Arbitrator is arbitrary, illegal and against facts and law and was beyond the scope of reference. It is alleged that the Arbitrator misconducted himself by saying that the Union of India had not reserved its right to claim damages for delay in the completion of the work and the work had not been taken up at the risk and cost of the contractor till the date of the award and as such, according to the Arbitrator, the risk action failed. It...

Aziz-ur-rehman Etc. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ455

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) These are appeals filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the determination of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants in the award No-69/82-83 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi for public purpose under notification dated 4.09.1967 issued under Section 4 of the Act.(2) The Land Acquisition Collector under award No-69/82-83 dated 22.2.1983 determined the compensation for the acquired lands of the claimants/appellants in Village Dhirpur at the rate of Rs.1,400.00 per bigha.(3) On reference being made on the basis of the applications filed by the respective claimants/appellants, the reference court by its judgment and order dated 5.10.1988 enhanced the market value of the acquired land and determined the same at Rs.12,000.00 per bigha.(4) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid determination the claimant/appellants have preferred these appeals before this court claim...

Jaimal Etc., Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 59(1995)DLT551

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) These are appeals filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the determination of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants in the Award No. 21/1980-81 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi for public purpose under notification dated 15.2.1979 issued under Section 4 of the Act. (2) The Land Acquisition Collector under Award No. 21/1980-81 dated 6.5.1980 determined the compensation for the acquired lands of the claimants/ appellants in Village Dhirpur at the rate of Rs. 7,000.00 per bigha. (3) On reference being made on the basis of the applications filed by the respective claimants/appellants, the reference Court by its judgment and order dated 18.8.1986 enhanced the market value of the acquired land and determined the same at Rs. 26,000.00 per bigha. (4) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid determination the claimant/appellants have preferred these appeals before this...

Under Secretary, Land and Building Deptt. Vesus Hanumant Dass

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Hanumant Dass, UDC, respondent was allottee of Government accommodation No. 1159, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. He retired from Government service on 29.2.1992. The Vice Principal, Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Anandvas, Shakurpur, where Hanumant Dass last served before retirement, wrote to the Accounts Officer, PWD, Land and Building Deptt. for the issuance of a 'No Due Certificate'. In reply, the Accounts Officer, PWD, L and B asked the Principal of the School that Rs. 4,035/- were due from Hanumant Dass as licence fee for broken periods during the years 1975 to 1992. A copy of the letter was sent to the respondent. The respondent replied that the DDO of the various offices, in which he had served, had been deducting licence fee of the quarter from his salary. The matter remained pending for clarifying whether licence fee had actually been deducted from the salary of the respondent. By order dated 4.9.1992 Unde...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Pawan Kumar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The respondent approached the District Forum with two grievances. One, that the initial disposal price of the flat was Rs. 1,05,500/- and it had been illegally revised to Rs. 1,25,300/-. The enhanced revised price had not been charged from every allottee who were similarly situated and two, even though he had paid Rs. 94,400/- on 5.9.89, he had not been allowed interest on that amount while the DDA had claimed interest on the disposal price as revised by it. The District Forum negatived the first of these grievances with a finding that the revision was carried out in respect of flats falling in that category. Revised price had been charged from others and the complainant could not make any grievance of it. Which regard to the second, it was held that the DD A should work out the interest payable on the amount admittedly deposited by tine complainant and refund the excess, if any. Aggrieved by the order, the present appeal was preferred by the DDA. 2. On beh...

Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)83; 1995CriLJ4121; 1995(3)Crimes648

J.B. Goel, J. (1) This appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22-1-91 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi convicting the appellant for offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,0001- and in default in payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of 2 years.(2) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this case are that the prosecutrix Kumari Bimla aged about 12 years had been residing with her parents at premises No. H-3/3 at Ps defense. Colony, New Delhi. Both her parents along with their other two children had gone to their village Chakrapur in district Nainital on 15-5-87 and returned on 8-6-87, and she was left behind alone under the care of the wife of the accused Kedar Nath Singh, who was living with her family in quarter No. J-1/3, Ps defense Colony, New Delhi. The prosecutrix and the daught...

Rampat and ors. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995RLR498

M K. Sharma, J.(1) These appeals u/S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) are directed against the impugned awards passed by the Addl. D.J. determining the compensation payable to the appellants/claimants for their land at Village Nilothi required for public purpose under notification dated 30.5.1979 issued u/S. 4 of Act,(2) By the aforesaid notification the lands of the appellants/claimants were acquired. The L.A. Collector by his award No. 30/1982-83 awarded Rs. 4,000.00 for the disputed land. On a reference the Additional D J. through the impugned award enhanced the compensation at Rs. 6,000.00 per bigha. (3) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid determination of compensation the appellants/ claimants have filed the present appeals in this court claiming Rs. 12,000.00 per bigha. (4) Our attention has been drawn to a decision of (his court in R.F.A. 318/1987, Desh Ram vs. U.O.I. D./4.11.1992. The said appeal also related to land acquired in Village Nilothi by notification issue...

Gopal Aggarwal Vs. Hotel Le Meridian

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. On 1.9.92 the appellant booked Banquet Hall and the bigger hall for two parties to be held on 15.1.93 and 16.1.93 respectively in the Respondent hotel. He paid Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively against receipts. He intimated to the Respondent about the cancellation of the parties on 26.10.92 and asked for refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 20,000/-. He failed to get a reply. He wrote to the General Manager on 22.10.93 under registered A.D. cover. In the reply dated 29.10.93 the Sr. Vice President and General Manager of the Respondent informed the appellant that normally the person who cancelled the booking forfeited the amount paid in advance. The said policy had been relaxed to the extent that if the hotel was able to sell the accommodation booked, it refunded the amount but if it failed to book the accommodation afresh the amount was forfeited. It was further intimated that the hotel was able to re-book the Banquet Hall for 15.1.93 and accordin...