Delhi Court March 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.
Flex Foods Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies (Delhi and Haryana)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ60
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The petition is against the order of summoning under section 73(2B) of the Companies Act, 1956 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate. (2) Although the petitioner challenges the order on number of grounds, I am confining myself only to what was convincingly brought home by Mr. Arun Jaitley. It relates to total lack of non-application of mind by the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order. (3) The entire order of summoning is cyclostyled with only the name of the petitioner company, the relevant provision of the Companies Act and the next date of hearing added with hand. This is how the order runs : 'REGISTRAROF Companies, Delhi & Haryana, New DELHI. Versus M/s. Flex Food Limited & Others. 30-11-93 Present Company Prosecutor for the .complainant. Complaint presented today. It is to be registered. The complainant is a public servant and has prayed for exemption of his personal appearance till further orders. He has further prayed that he...
Synthes Ag Chur Vs. Rob Mathys India (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(38)DRJ51
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) Plaintiffs have filed the suits for injunction. (2) I.A. 3420/93 in Suit No. 708/93 by the plaintiffs against the defendant restraining the defendant from using the mark of the plaintiffs. I have to give a brief account of the case of the plaintiffs because this is not an usual case where owner of a trade mark claims some relief against a third party who sought to interfere with the use of the trade mark of the plaintiffs. (3) The first plaintiff Synthes Ag Chur is a Company incorporated in Switzerland. Mr. R.J. Hartmann is the constituted attorney. Second plaintiff Mathys Limited Bettlach is also represented by Mr. R.J. Hartmann, who is the constituted attorney. After referring to the history of the development of components implants and instruments for the modern bone surgery the plaintiffs have stated in para 7 in the following terms :- 'THE plaintiff No. I is the proprietor of the trademark AO/ASIF and a mark consisting of a device with the alphabet 'A' placed...
Gulam Mohd. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)150; 1996(3)Crimes272; 1996(37)DRJ32
Usha Mehra, J. (1) On secret information being received by Sub Inspector 0m Prakash that a person who is in possession of Charas would be coming from the Railway Station side towards Chandni Chowk, S.I. Shri 0m Prakash organized a raiding party consisting of Constable Kaushal Singh and Manmohan. They were on patrolling duty in the area near Jubilee Cinema Along with A.S.I. Sharan Chand on 17th September,1988. Mr.Suresh Kumar an independent person was also made member of the raiding party. Nakabandi was made near Jubilee Cinema. On the pointing of informer, the appellant was stopped. He was asked whether he would like to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Notice under Section 50 of the Act was served on him, but he declined to get searched before either. Thereafter the formalities were completed namely sending of Rukka, weighing the smack and then converting it into the Pulandas, separating the smack for the purpose of sample and sealing the same. Cfsl form was fil...
Dhanraj Gupta Vs. Savitri Malhotra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: ILR1996Delhi345
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6th November, 1995 delivered in E.A. No. 177/94 and 178/94. The brief facts which are necessary to decide this appeal are recapitulated as under : (2) In the year 1967, a suit for partition was filed by Chiranjeet Lal Malhotra against Ram Nath Malhotra of House No. J-III 30, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The suit was decreed in the year 1971 and judgment and decree was passed in favor of Chiranjeet Lal Malhotra against Ram Nath Malhotra. (3) After considerable litigation, execution petition was filed on 19th September, 1981 for execution of the said decree. Notice of execution petition was directed to be issued to R. N. Malhotra, Judgment debtor, who appeared in person in court on 20th October 1981 and was allowed to file reply. R. N. Malhotra expired on 4th November, 1981. Immediately thereafter, notices were directed to be issued to the legal heirs of the judgment debtor. Notices were s...
Neelam Mahajan Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2725; 61(1996)DLT871; 1996(37)DRJ154
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Men have always been curious about the lives of other people. It is probably for. this reason that biographical narratives of real lives, lived in a specific time and place and which provide an insight into the real world of another person have always fascinated readers. In a way such writings enable us to try on another identity and thereby broaden our own. Khushwant Singh who gave us the monumental History of the Sikhs, contributed to the Indian Section of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, translated some of the Sikh scriptures and wrote that unforgettable Train to Pakistan, has brought out 'The Women and Men in my life' in which he has penned certain life sketches literally showing us individuals which by and large cannot be crammed into conventional cultural categories. His women, in particular, have a formidable presence. They are not the kind who would scurry to hide in chicken droppings. Despite hazards, tests and tribulations, they generally come out unvanquishe...
K.L. Bhatia Vs. Gurmit Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ189
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) By this order I shall be disposing of is No.7668 of 1989 and is No.6621 of 1990. is No. 7668 of 1989 is filed by the plaintiff under Order Xxxix rules I and 2 Cpc, seeking a restraint on the defendants from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of property No. K-79B, Kalkaji, New Delhi. is 6621 of 1990, is the application moved by defendant No.1 for vacation of interim orders dated 3-10-1989 and 3-7-1990 by which the defendants were restrained from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of the suit property. (I)The application for injunction is filed in a suit for Specific Performance. The suit was filed on 3-1-1989. The plaintiffs case is that defendant No.2 Mr.Kuljit Singh Gorkal, holding himself out to be the owner of house No. K-79B, Kalkaji, New Delhi, agreed to sell the same for a consideration of Rs. 13.25 lacs to the plaintiff. A sum of Rs.20,000.00 was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No.2, who executed a receipt-cum- agree...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›