Delhi Court July 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.
Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)299; 63(1996)DLT163
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) Lpa 32/96 has been preferred by the Indian Hotels Co. Limited feeling aggrieved by an order dated 28.2.96 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court who has directed a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging an order of assessment fixing the annual rateable value of the appellant's property liable to property tax thereon passed by the Director (Tax) to be dismissed as not maintainable in view of availability of an alternate remedy of appeal. (2) The building in question is known as Hotel Taj Palace Inter-Continental and is situated on plot No. 2, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi. A collaboration agreement was entered into on 9.4.85 between the Delhi Development Authority (the Dda, for short) and the appellant whereunder land admeasuring approximately 6 acres was brought in by Dda as its corporate contribution. The Dda was to contribute Rs. 15 crores for the construction license and operation of the hotel, including the land. On 31.7.90 the Dda informed the D...
Savitri Minda Vs. Minda Indsutries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)385; 64(1996)DLT447
Lokeshwar Prasad, J. (1) This Order will dispose of plaintiff's application filed under Order Vi Rule 17, Order Xxii Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC). The facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned application briefly stated are that the plaintiff as the sole proprietress of the trade mark 'MINDA', registered under Trade Mark No. 241844 in Class 9 and 357811 in Class 12 and also as proprietress of the artistic work entitled- 'MINDA', alleged to have been duly registered at No. A-47612/85 under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, filed a suit under Sections 105 & 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 as well as under Section 55 of the Indian Copyright Act,1957 for the relief of permanent injunction and rendition of accounts etc. against the defendant named above. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff and filed a written statement inter-alia contending that the plaintiff has no subsisti...
Himalaya Drug Co. Vs. S.B.L. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)853; 1996(26)ARBLR417(Delhi); 3(1996)CLT384; 63(1996)DLT438
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) Plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction etc. against the defendant, inter alia, on the allegations that it is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Ayurvedic medicinal preparations since 1930 and some of its well known Ayurvedic medicines are sold under the trade marks - Abana, Cystone, Diarex, Diabecon, Gasex, Geriforte, Herbolax, Liv 52, Lukol, Mentat, Pilex, Rumalaya, Septilin, Speman, Styplon, Tentex forte, Bonnisan drops, Geriforte syrup, Koflet syrup, Hicolin cream, Rumalaya cream etc. Liv-52 is basically a liver tonic prescribed for liver disorder and to protect the liver against various dys-functions, damages and hepatotoxine. Trade mark Liv-52 is a mark coined in 1955 by the plaintiff and it has no dictionary meaning or any meaning in common parlance. It is alleged that the plaintiff has been incurring approximately Rs. 3 crores per annum towards promoting sale of Liv 52 and the approximate annual turnover thereof for the year 199...
Rupendra Kashyap Vs. Jiwan Publishing House
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(38)DRJ81
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This is an application seeking grant of an ad interim injunction in a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent a junction restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 from publishing, printing or selling 3pics of question papers and for rendition of account delivering up etc. complaining of infringement of plaintiffs copyright by defendants No. 1 and 2.(2) The plaintiff Rupendra Kashyap is proprietor of M/S Som Sudha Prakashan dealing in publication of educational books. According to the plaintiff, he is an exclusive licensee of the Central Board of Secondary Education, defendant No.3 (hereinafter, Cbse for short) in respect of past year's question papers prescribed for class X and Xii examinations being conducted year tyear from 1990 onwards by defendant No.3 and thereforee is the owner of the copyright under section 54 of the Copyright Act 1957. No one other than the plaintiff could publish, print, reprint, reproduce sell or offer for sell in any form the...
Rajiv Goyal Vs. Prakash Wati Kohli
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)725; 63(1996)DLT413; 1996(38)DRJ269
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) By this order, I would be disposing of IA.9924/94 moved by the defendant for rejection of the plaint under Order Vii Rule Ii of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) Before dealing with the grounds on which the rejection of the plaint is sought, it would be pertinent to notice the averments in the plaint. (3) Plaintiff Shri Rajiv Goyal son of Late Shri B.B. Goyal, has filed the present suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction. The plaintiffs father, late Shri B.B, Goyal, was in occupation and possession of l/4th of the shop premises bearing No.M-20, Greater Kailash Main Market, Part-1, New Delhi under the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.230.00 . It is averred in the plaint that under an arrangement with the defendant part of the shop that had been rented out to the plaintiffs father Shri B.B. Goyal, was rented to another tenant resulting in reduction of rent to Rs.50.00 per month. The plaintiff claims to have succeeded to the tenancy rights in respect of the shop...
Common Cause Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)128; 63(1996)DLT251; 1996(38)DRJ145
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) Time teaches wisdom and expense makes wiser. 'Lump Sum Payment Scheme' or 'One-Time Payment for Life of Property Tax - Scheme' introduced by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi might have earned substantial revenue in the coffers of the Corporation but the peace supposed to have been purchased by the tax payers has certainly not lasted for life as is apparent from the few dockets collected in the archives of this Court. The. cause may be either a confusion created by the Corporation or greed or over-zealousness on the part of the tax payers, the fact remains that the Corporation itself has abandoned the scheme and now a judicial pronouncement must put an end to the controversies left surviving by the ghost of the scheme though the scheme itself docs not now survive.(2) This judgment proposes to dispose of Cwp Nos.997/95, 4895/94, 2878/95, 3967/94, 3543/94, 30/96, 4317/94, 743/95, 1996/94, 2768/95, 2599/95, 3075/95, 2598/95, 3965/94, 166/96. We would first place on rec...
Sir Sobha Singh and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)56; 63(1996)DLT319; 1996(38)DRJ191
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) Feeling aggrieved by an order of assessment dated 13.12.95 assessing rateable value of the petitioners' property bearing No. 1II-P/R-557 a writ petition was filed which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court, who has directed the petition to be dismissed as' not maintainable in view of an alternate remedy of filing an appeal being available to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge this Lpa has been filed.(2) The facts in so far as relevant for the purpose of this appeal may be noticed briefly. 2.1 The rateable value of the property has been assessed at Rs.3.47,11,200.00 less 10% w.e.f. 1.4.95. 2.2 According to the appellants the rateable value of the property was assessed at Rs.l,10,000.00 for the year 1986-87. It was revised and assessed at Rs.l.38,00,000.00 for the period 1987 to 1991. For the year 1991-92 the rateable value was revised and assessed at Rs.2.88 crores. 2.3 Several appeals were preferred by the ...
P.M. Lalitha Lekha Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT558
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present is filed by the petitioner, inter-alia for the following two reliefs: (A)For direction to the respondents to fix the salary of the petitioner at Rs. 550.00 with effect from May 1,1981 with all consequential benefits and for quashing the Office Order dated March 31,1983 which fixed the salary of the petitioner at Rs. 440.00 at the minimum of the scale of Rs. 440-750 with effect from May 1,1981 (Annexure A-5 to the writ petition); (B)For writ or direction in the nature of mandamus to grant senior scale of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) from May 1, 1988 as per Government of India letter No. F.5-180/86-U.T.I dated August 12, 1987 files as Annexure A-8.(2) The petitioner was appointed as Trained Graduate Science Teacher in the Delhi Tamil Education Association (Regd.) on January 1,1976 'The said school was accorded recognition under the Delhi School Education Act, 19/3 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on May , The petitioner was appointed by a regularly con...
K. Bhattacharjee Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT467; 1996(38)DRJ343
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) In the year 1979, Delhi Development Authority announced a scheme known as Registration Scheme on New Pattern of Intending Purchasers of Flats to be Constructed by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter 'RSNP' or the 'Scheme'-for short). The object of the Scheme was to reduce the sale price of MIG/LIG and Janta flats so as to be within the reach of the common man with easier mode to facilitate payments. The Scheme opened on 1.9.1979 and closed on 30.9.1979. The original scheme is available on record of civil writ petitions. Salient features thereof are noticed hereinafter.'(2) The applicants to be eligible to apply under the scheme must not own any residential house or plot in full or in part on leasehold or freehold basis in the Union Territory of Delhi either in own name or in the name of spouse, minor and/or dependent children, dependent parent or dependent minor sisters and brothers. 2.1 The applicants were required to make deposits as under :- Category Inc...
Krishan Kumar Shyam Lal Bansal Contractors Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT216; (1996)114PLR30
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The petitioner, named above, which is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 has filed the present petition under sections 14, 17 & 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') averring that the petitioner firm entered into a contract with respondent No. 1 the Union of India for the work 'Provision of 584 Balconies to Type 'B' Quarters at Aram Bagh, New Delhi' and after completing necessary formalities an agreement bearing No. 1/EE/CD XIII/83-84 was executed between the parties. However, certain disputes arose between the parties which, in terms of Clause 25 of the Arbitration Agreement, were referred to the sole arbitration of Sh. N.H. Chandwani. The Arbitrator entered upon the reference on 1.4.89 and finally made and published the award No. ARB/NSC/421 dated the 30th November, 1990. (2) It is prayed by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 Sh. N.H. Chandwani, the Arbitrator be directed to file the award Al...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »