Delhi Court December 1996 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.
Devi Charan Vs. Ranpat Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)632; 65(1997)DLT493; 1997(40)DRJ556
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The two plaintiffs in the suit have filed the suit against 20 defendants praying for the following reliefs against defendants 1 to 13: A)a decree for possession in favor of the owners and against defendants No.1 to 13 be passed in respect of the portion marked with letters Efgh and shown in red colour in the accompanying plan, of property No. 1, Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi - 110054; b) a decree for mesne profits for Rs. 1,20,000.00 up to the date of filing of the suit with future interest @ 18% per annum on the amount awarded by the Hon'ble Court be passed in favor of the owners and against defendants 1 to 13; c) a decree for future mesne profits @ Rs. 5,000.00 per month from the date of the suit till the possession is delivered by the defendants 1 to 13 be passed in favor of the owners and against the defendants 1 to 13;(2) Before I deal with the rival contentions of the parties I want to place on record what happened earlier in this case between the part...
M.M. Sehgal Limited Vs. Sanmati Trading Investments Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1996
Reported in: 65(1997)DLT53
Vijender Jain, J.(1) This is a petition filed under Section 391(1) read with Section 393 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanction of the scheme of amalgamation of M.M.Sehgal Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Transferor Company') with Sanmati Trading Investments Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Transferee Company').(2) The Transferee Company was incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act,1956 and is having its registered office at 302, Ansal Chambers-11, 6, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. The authorised capital of the Transferee Company is Rs. 24,75,000.00 divided into 2,47,500 shares of Rs. 10.00 each. The main objects of the Transferee Company are set out in detail in the Memorandum of Association, which is 'Annexure 'D' to this petition.(3) The Transferor Company is having, its registered office at 302, Ansal Chambers-11,6, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi and its authorised share capital is 2,50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10.00 each. The issued, subscribed and paid u...
Rajinder Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1996
Reported in: 65(1997)DLT89; 1997(40)DRJ49
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) By judgment dated 24th November, 1993, the Additional Sessions Judge while convicting the appellant of the offence under Sections 394/34 Indian Penal Code read with Section 397 Indian Penal Code, sentenced him to undergo Ri for seven years and also imposed a fine of Rs.2,000.00 and in default of the payment of fine to undergo further Ri for a period of six months. The appellant was in detention for a period of about eight months during trial and is in jail since the date of his conviction. While the learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge finding him guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 394/34 Indian Penal Code read with Section 397 Indian Penal Code, the only point raised before me is that the appellant was of the age of 19 years on the date of commission of offence and he should have, thereforee, been given the benefit of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short refer...
Paramveer Singh Sachdeva Vs. Kohinoor Paints
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1996
Reported in: 65(1997)DLT541; 1997(40)DRJ334
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Parties are related to each other. They are exerting their rights over the marks Chabi and KOHINOOR. The respondents are the sister and brother-in-law of the petitioner. The affairs of the firm known as M/s Kohinoor Paints Faridabad Ltd. was looked after by Shri Trilok Singh Sachdeva and his family members. The petitioner is the son of said Shri Trilok Singh Sachdeva. Shri Trilok Singh Sachdeva died on 2nd November,1992. It has been the case of the petitioner as set up in the plaint that he got a shock on the death of his father. He, thereforee, did not object to the use of the mark Chabi and Kohinoor by the respondents. There was, however, clear understanding between the family members i.e. the petitioner and respondents that as and when the petitioner's own business interest require, the respondents shall forthwith cease and desist from using the mark Chabi and KOHINOOR. The petitioner is holding more than 47% share in the company. The dispute within the family star...
induss Food Products and Equipments Ltd. Vs. Rani Sati Ice Cream Pvt. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1996
Reported in: 65(1997)DLT802
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) After the conclusion of the arguments by the learned Counsel for the parties the words of Justice Parker which were uttered in the year 1906 came to my mind and they are : 'THIS is just one of those cases where it is perfectly possible that another mind, if brought to bear on the subject, might take another view. It always is so in cases of this sort where you cannot really test whether a confusion has arisen, but only have to judge from the general appearance or sound of the two words whether confusion is likely to arise.'(2) The plaintiff is having its registered of ficeat Calcutta. Defendant is in Delhi. The plaintiff Indus's Food Products & Equipments Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacture and selling ice-cream under the trade mark ROLLICK. The defendant is doing the same business under the trade mark Frolic. (3) Both the marks are not registered and the plaintiff has come forward with an action for injunction on the ground of passing off and defendan...
S.P. Aggarwal Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1996
Reported in: 1997(40)DRJ16
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) The grievance of the petitioner is that the rateable value in the instant case was not fixed in accordance with the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case entitled N.D.M.C. v. East India Hotels Ltd. and Anr.,( Civil Appeal Nos. 42-44/87, decided on August 25,1994). Hence he wants that rateable value fixed by the Director (Tax) vide order dated December 14,1995 be set aside.(2) It has been urged, on the other hand, on behalf of the respondent that the present writ petition is not maintainable before this Court as the petitioner has got an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 115 of the N.D.M.C. Act.(3) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties at sufficient length. Admittedly an appeal is maintainable against every assessment order under Section 115 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in case the petitioner prefers an appeal against the impugned assessment order in that eventuality he may be r...
Sharda Nath Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)329; 65(1997)DLT351; 1997(40)DRJ349
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) The petitioner through the present petition wants quashment of the letter dated March 30,1981 issued by the Deputy Director, Delhi Development Authority, bearing No. F.3(133)78- CS/DDA whereby a sub lease regarding plot No.C-70, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, in favor of the petitioner was cancelled. She has further prayed that peaceful possession over the said plot be handed over to her. (2) Facts which led to the filing of the present petition are as under: that the petitioner is the wife of one Prakash Nath. She is working as a lecturer in Indian Penal Code college, Delhi. Plot bearing No. C-70, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, measuring 800 sq.yards ( hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed plot' for the sake of convenience) was allotted to the petitioner vide sub lease deed dated July 5,1973 ( vide Annexure B). The said perpetual sub lease deed was duly registered. The disputed plot was earlier allotted to respondent No.4 and a perpetual sub lease deed in respect thereof ...
Kishan Lal Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)652; 65(1997)DLT281; 1997(40)DRJ404
K.Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed the suit for the recovery of Rs.10 lakhs for damages against the New Delhi Municipal Committee.(2) The case of the plaintiff briefly stated thus. In the year 1968 the plaintiff took on lease the premises at Regal Park, Connaught Place, New Delhi, popularly known as 'Open Air Drive in Snack Bar' opposite Regal Cinema, New Delhi. the lease was with effect from 01.06.1968. The period fixed was five years. Rent fixed was Rs.5,104.00 per mensem plus Rs. 250.00 per mensem as rent for car parking space. The said lease expired and it was renewed with effect from 01.06.1973 for another period of five years with increase of rent to the extent of 25%, namely, Rs.6,380.00 per mensem plus Rs. 312.50 per mensem for car parking space.(3) According to the plaintiff large amount was spent for putting up construction and for doing business and he was carrying on the business in the premises. While so, on 18.02.1976 a show cause notice was given by the defenda...
Gunwanti Mullick Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)625; 1996(39)DRJ803
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The present petition, filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raises a short question as to whether the proceedings of a Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the DPC') wherein the Dpc considered the candidates who were ineligible for promotion under the Recruitment Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the RRs') as in force, are legal and can be acted upon for giving promotion to the candidates recommended by the Dpc on a subsequent date when the candidates so recommended became eligible for promotion. (2) The facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Technical Supervisor(Lab.) in the Department of Bio-technology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) w.e.f. 1.8.89. Respondents 2 & 3 were also appointed as Technical Supervisor (Lab.) (Blood Bank) in the above said Institute w.e.f. 26.6.90. Respondent No.4 & 5 were appointed a...
Adeseqren Jackson Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)557; 65(1997)DLT251
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in Fir No. 42/88, P.S. Palam Airport, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 78/89 sentencing the appellant-convict to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1.(X) lakh and in default to undergo R.1. for a further period of six months. The prosecution case, as revealed from the record, shortly stated is that on 26.11.1988, Si Dinesh Chander Shukla was on duty at Igi Airport, Domestic Departure Hall at Gate No. 1. At about 8.40 p.m, security check-up of passengers bound for Indian Airlines Flight No. 1C 184 Delhi-Bombay was in progress and a person presented himself before Si Dinesh Chander for security check-up and for frisking. While Si Dinesh Chander was frisking that person, he found two false testicles along with his natural testicles and he informed inspec...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »