Delhi Court May 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.
Chandra Swami Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)35; 1996CriLJ3319; 63(1996)DLT119; 1996(38)DRJ38
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The bail application of the petitioner has already been rejected by this Court vide order 8th May,1996. In this petition, the petitioner has averred that this petition is by way of review of the order of 8th May,1996. During the course of arguments, Mr.Ashok Arora, however, contended that this may be treated as second bail application. Admittedly, there is no bar for the petitioner to file a fresh bail application, but for doing so there has to be fresh facts and intervening circumstances to show that these facts were not available when his first bail application was decided or the intervening circumstances have enabled him to seek bail. But unfortunately no intervening circumstance nor fresh facts have been urged nor brought on record. Mr.Ashok Arora through out had been arguing that this Court while delivering the order on 8th May,1996 did not appreciate properly the contentions of the petitioner and had only presumed that C.B.I, was apprehending interference of ev...
Alika Khosia Vs. Thomas Mathew
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)325; 63(1996)DLT120; 1996(37)DRJ525
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The petitioner's wife has filed the present Matrimonial petition for dissolution of the marriage with respondent No. I on ground of cruelty and adultery under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act.(2) The petitioner, who was a hindu by birth got converted into Christianity prior to marriage to the respondent No. 1 on 29-12-1985 through a Church ceremony. There are two children a daughter aged 8 years named Divya and a son named George aged 6 years born of the marriage. The allegation in the petition is that the petitioner was forced to leave matrimonial home in Cochin, due to cruel and inhuman behavior of the respondent No.1 husband, who was at that time posted as Collector in Cochin. The respondent No. 1 is an officer belonging to the Indian Administrative Service and is presently posted as Private Secretary to the Cabinet Minister for Industries Mr. K. Karunakaran. The allegation in the petition is that respondent No.1 was having and still continues to have an ad...
Pushpa Kathju Vs. Amit Mohan S. Dahiya Badshad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT525; 1996(37)DRJ401; (1996)113PLR63
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) The petitioners have filed this petition as indigent persons for the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000.00 p.m. For the period October 1993 to February 1995, a sum of Rs.2,55,000.00 has been claimed in the petition. This order will dispose of the application filed by the petitioner for the grant of interim maintenance till the matter is finally decided by the Court. The facts giving rise to the petition are : -(2) The petitioner No.1 and respondent were married in accordance with Hindu Rites on October 21, 1977. From the wedlock of the parties, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were born on October 25; 1983 and February 14, 1990. The parties could not reconcile with each other as a result of which they separated. Since about October, 1993 parties are living separately. In November, 1993 the parties filed a petition under Section 13(1)(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent by a decree of divorce. The statement of the parties was ...
Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. Vs. Kiwi T.T.K. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT29; 1996(37)DRJ649; (1996)114PLR45
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The plaintiff company is engaged in manufacture and sale of consumer products and one of the products of the plaintiff is liquid shoe polish being manufactured and marketed by them under the name and style of Cherry Blossom Premium Liquid Wax Polish. Shoe polish in the liquid form is stated to have been introduced by the plaintiff about 10 years back and it comprises of natural wax available, namely, Carnauba wax allegedly being imported from Brazil for purposes of making this polish. Defendant is also engaged in the manufacture of polish and one of the brand being manufactured and marketed by the defendant is 'KIWI' brand of liquid polish. It is alleged that the liquid polish being marketed by the defendant and some other manufacturers have much less wax contents and more acrylic contents as compared to the liquid polish of the plaintiff. The acrylic base allegedly tends to form a film on the footwear which over a period of time is liable to crack and thus damage t...
Amir Chand Om Parkash Vs. Monga Perfumery and Floor Mills
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)210; 1997(1)ARBLR509(Delhi); 63(1996)DLT113; 1996(37)DRJ636
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) In the suit alleging infringement of registered trade mark Mahavir Chhap with device of Hanuman or Bajrang Ball and plaintiffs copyright in respect of Dhoopbatti and Aggarbati under the impugned label/carton Jai Bajrang Bali Delux Dhoop by I A 340/90 the plaintiff prays for relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Cpc in respect of plaintiffs trade mark and copyright pending the hearing and disposal of the suit. By I A No. 1522/92 also the plaintiff has prayed for the same relief.(2) The case of the plaintiff shortly stated is that the plaintiff is a registered proprietor of the trade mark Mahavir Chhap with device of Hanumanji under registration No. 14958 dated 26.4.1943 in class-3 in respect of Dhoop BATI; that in the year 1941 the plaintiff adopted the trade mark Mahavir Chhap so as to indicate its connection in the course of trade with the goods of its manufacture and sale as a proprietor thereof; that the plaintiff adopted a distinctive label of the trade mark Mahavir...
Yogesh Kumar Gupta Vs. V. Sathyapalan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)628; 1996(37)DRJ412
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed this suit on the allegations that the defendants by an agreement to sell dated 30h June, 1993 after receiving the total consideration, had agreed to sell the ground floor of the property R-82/5, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi to one Sh.R.K.Aggarwal. Besides the agreement to sell defendant No.2 as general attorney of defendant No. 1 had also executed a general power of attorney,, the special power of attorney and the Will and all these documents were registered before the Sub-Registrar. The receipt; affidavit and possession certificate were also executed by defendant No.2 in favor of the said Sh.R.K.Aggarwal. The said Sh.R.K.Aggarwal in turn by an agreement to sell dated 17th January, 1995 agreed to sell to plaintiff No. 1 one-half of the ground floor comprising of one big hall for a total consideration of Rs.2,11,000.00 . Plaintiff No.1 paid the said amount to the said Sh.R.K. Aggarwal and a receipt and possession letter was duly deliver...
Prithipal Singh Sabharwal Vs. Jagjit Singh Sabharwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ643
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) By this order I propose to dispose of all the applications of the parties for the grant of an injunction as also for vacating the ex parte order of injunction passed on 24th August, 1994 as modified by the order dated 14th September, 1994. Brief facts which have resulted in the filing of the present suits are : IA.Nos.7287/94 & 8092/94(2) That the property bearing No.C-92, defense Colony, New Delhi was owned by U.Col.Sant Singh Sabharwal, who died on 19th July, 1994. Plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of the deceased whereas defendant No.3 is his widow. Defendants 4 to 7 are the daughters-of the deceased. The bone of contention is the property bearing No.C-92, defense Colony, New Delhi which, according to defendant No.1, had been bequeathed in his favor by the deceased by virtue of a Will dated 28th April, 1992. The plaintiffs claiming themselves to be entitled to 1/11th equal share in the property, left behind by the deceased, both moveable and immovea...
Hoechst Ag Vs. Unisule (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT140
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The plaintiffs, named above, have filed the present suit for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trade mark, copy right passing off, delivery of infringed goods and damages etc. against the defendant. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that plaintiff No.1 and 2 are Joint Stock Companies, organized and existing according to the laws of Germany, carrying on business inter- alias as manufacturers of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. Plaintiff No.3 is a Company, incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on inter-alia the business as manufacturers of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. The defendant is a firm too carrying on inter- alias the business as manufacturers of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. It is alleged that plaintiff No. 1 on 9.1.1961 applied for and obtained registration of the mark 'BARALGAN' (word per se) nder No. 200032 in respect of pharmaceutical products falling in Class 5 of the Fo...
Ajit Mookerjee Vs. Computer Maintenance Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)216; 63(1996)DLT923
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that directions be issued to the respondents to quash the acceptance of Voluntary Retirement of the petitioner vide letter dated 1.3.1996 and alleged acceptance on 25.1.1996. It is further prayed that the respondent-Company or its agents, servants be restrained from giving effect to file note dated 1.3.1996 signed by respondent No. 2. (2) The petitioner was appointed to the post of Vice President, Corporate Planning with posting at Delhi vide letter of appointment letter dated 28.12.1987 in the respondent-Company, a Government of India enterprise. The respondent introduced a 'Voluntary Retirement Scheme' for employees of public sector enterprise on 5.10.88 with clarification on 6.1.1989. (3) On 29.5.1992, certain clarification were given with regard to the implementation of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. (4) On 25.1.1996, the petitioner had sent a handwritten letter to the Chairman and Managing Director...
Naresh Chand JaIn and Sons. Vs. Lt. Governor, National Capital Territo ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT88
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the decision of the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board denying the allotment of the shop to the petitioner in the grain market at Najafgarh. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is that the petitioner has been marketing and dealing in the business of agricultural produce since 1981 under a valid license from respondent No. 3 which has been renewed on year to year basis and is valid up to 31st March, 1995. It is alleged that in 1984 respondent No. I and 2 developed a general market in Najafgarh in which various plots Were developed to be allotted to the traders of 'A' and 'B' category whose average annual turn over of the notified commodities of the license during the period from 1.4.1980 to 31.3.1995 was not less than Rs. 50,000/.- Priority was to be given to those traders who were operating within the notified market yard in the Najafgarh town. In ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »