Delhi Court May 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
S.C. Mathur Vs. V.P. Punj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)841; 1997(2)ARBLR56(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT822; 1997(42)DRJ590
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) The award dated 15th November 1989 rendered by the sole arbitrator resolving the disputes pursuant to reference agreement dated 9th October 1989 by the four brothers, is the subject matter of the controversy in these proceedings.(2) By award dated 6.8.1987, seven sons and one married daughter of late Pt.Kanhaiya Lal Punj were awarded various companies, assets and properties. Subsequent thereto the disputes arose between the four brothers, namely, Virender Prakash Punj, Satya Narain Prakash Punj, Ravinder Prakash Punj and Nilinder Prakash Punj about running of their businesses and the allocation and determination of their respective shares so that they can work independently as far as possible and run their own affairs, also as regards the ownership of the properties. As there could not be any agreement on the terms and conditions for controlling and running the businesses, Reference Agreement dated 9th October 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the agreement) admittedly...
S.B. Enterprises Vs. Rmb Associates Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)241; 70(1997)DLT330; 1997(42)DRJ431
K.S. Gupta, J.(1) This appeal by the plaintiffs appellants is against the order dated May 9, 1997 of learned Single Judge dismissing I.A.No.2997/97 filed by it under Order xxxviii Rule 5 and Section 151 CPC.(2) Appellants have filed suit contending that Harinderjeet Singh Walia is the proprietor of appellants 1 to 3 and is a partner Along with his mother Smt.Harjit Kaur of appellant No. 4. He is also managing Appellants 5, 6 & 7 firms on behalf or his mother as well as the wife Smt.Sweety Walia. Respondent No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at 23, Convent Road, Calcutta and Branch office at A-6, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. It is engaged in the business of management, consultancy, leasing hire purchase financing and other related fields. Respondent No. 2 is the President while respondents 3 & 4 are the directors of respondent No. 1 Respondents 5 & 6 are the banks with whom respondent No. 1 has cash credit facility to the extent of Rs. 40 L...
Raghuvar (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)425; 67(1997)DLT471
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The petitioners have filed the present petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing Notice, Inviting Tender issuer vide Tender No. AIR/FM-1/96 published by the respondents in 'Indian Express' dated November 1,1996 and for issuance of a writ of mandamus to allot time slots to the tenderers who are successful highest bidders in Tender No. 2/95 earlier issued by the respondents. (2) Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 at Calcutta and petitioner No. 2 is the Company Secretary of petitioner No. 1 as well as the shareholder of the company. Respondent No. 1 is Union of India. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and respondent No. 2 is All India Radio under the control of respondent No. 1. The actions of the respondents, as referred to above are being challenged as arbitrary, illegal discriminatory and vocative of the principles of natural justice as well as vocative of the...
Raj Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)357; 1998CriLJ424; 1997(4)Crimes226; 68(1997)DLT77; 1997(42)DRJ283
N.G. Nandi, J. (1) Appellant Raj Kumar S/o Krishan Rao stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500.00 in default further R.I. for one year and for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years in Sessions Case No. 10/89 in Fir No. 205/88 Police Station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.(2) The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal shortly stated are that on 3.9.88 at about 10.10 P.M. from Aiims, Duty Constable Dalbir Singh conveyed a telephonic information to Ambedkar Nagar Police Station to the effect that one Arun Rao had been admitted in the hospital with stab injuries; that on receipt of this information Dd No. 17-A was recorded and Constable Vijender Singh went to the hospital and obtained Mlc of Arun Rao; that the statement of Keshav Rao, uncle of injured Arun Rao was recorded in the hospital stating tha...
A.K. Singhla Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)616; AIR1997Delhi376; 67(1997)DLT860; 1997(42)DRJ569; 1997RLR489
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This order shall govern the disposal of Cwp Nos. 2346/91, 2533/91, 2952/91, 2953/91, 3005/91, 3006/91, 3205/91, 3300/91, 3447/91, 3449/91, and 5784/93. All these petitions raise a common question relating to the entitlement of the respondent-NDMC to levy misuse charges @ 200% of the tariff.(2) It is not necessary to notice the facts in details of each individual case. Suffice it to state that all the petitioners herein are professionals and belong to 5 categories : (i) legal practitioners (ii) chartered accountants (iii) architects (iv) doctors running clinics and (v) agencies making available junior level employees. They are in enjoyment of electricity supply meant for domestic use. In view of the whole or part of the premises having been found being subjected to the use for office/clinic as above said, the respondent has billed the petitioners for misuse charges calculated @ 200% of the Tariff. It is not disputed that if the supply of electricity meant for domesti...
Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)343; 67(1997)DLT877; 1997(42)DRJ435
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) M/S. Maruti Udyog Limited (for short `MUL') manufactures motor, vehicles. M/s. Bharat Seats Limited (for short `BSL') a joint venture with Mul, manufactures seats for motor vehicles for exclusive supply to MUL. The seat is one of the inputs of the motor vehicles. The seat assembly consists of three parts. These parts are first manufactured by Bsl and sold to Mul and thereafter are reissued by Mul to Bsl for manufacture of seats on job-work basis after which Bsl supplies the complete seats to Mul who uses it in the manufacture of their motor vehicles.(2) Prior to 21st January 1989 parts of seats used to be physically transported by Bsl to Mul under a gate pass, Mul availed Modivat credit on the basis of these passes. Thereafter the parts were physically respelled to Bsl under the procedure for the purpose of sending inputs to job works as per Rule 57F(2)of the Central Excise Rules (for short referred to as `the Rules' hereinafter). It is however, not in dispute tha...
S. Mehar Singh Vs. M.L. Gupta and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)542; AIR1998Delhi64; 1997(2)ARBLR250(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT759; 1997(42)DRJ403
S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) This is an appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the 'Act' for short). S. Mehar Singh, trading as Motion Levers (India), 180-B, Industrial Area, Ludhiana made an application No. 271631 to register a trade mark consisting of the letters `MLI' in a geometrical device in Class 7 in respect of parts of sewing machines excepting needless for sale in States of Punjab, Maharastra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Union Territory of Delhi.(2) Objections were filed by Madan Lal Gupta and Co., comprising of three partners, viz, Madan Lal Gupta, Ramesh Kumar Gupta and Ravinder Nath, 99, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana-3 on 5th April, 1975 under Section 21(1) of the Act claiming that they are the proprietors of the mark `ML' label in respect of sewing machine parts registered under No. 230568-B and mark an respect of goods of the same description will be contrary to Section 12(3) of the Act by reason of user and reputation of the mar...
Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Batra Brothers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)317; 68(1997)DLT278; 1997(42)DRJ419
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) The question involved in this petition is regarding the assessment of property tax under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short `the act') pertaining to property No. 13-KM Shakurbasti, Rohtak Road, Delhi. It is a railway property. Its ownership vests in President of India. Under an agreement dated 21st November, 1974 entered into between the Administration on one part and respondent No. 1 on the other, the use of the land in question was granted to respondent No. 1 for the purpose of constructing and maintaining thereon depot for petroleum products. As provided in the agreement, the land is to be used solely for storage of petroleum products and vegetable oils. The agreement, inter alia, provides that respondent No. 1 shall not be entitled to assign, mortgage, sublet or transfer otherwise the privileges mentioned in Clause 1 of the agreement without previously obtaining the consent in writing of the Administration. The agreement describes the arrangemen...
Brakes International Vs. Tilak Raj Bagga and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)553; AIR1998Delhi146; 1997(2)ARBLR264(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT882
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Although the various parts of the version put forth do not dovetail very well into one another, let me, in my own way, provide a graph of the events. M/s. Forward Auto Industries was a firm comprising of two partners namely Tilak Raj Bagga and Trilok Chand. It was dissolved in the year 1985. However, much before that, (on April 3,1984, to be precise) they had got registered in Class 12 and in Part A a trade mark called FINEX. On June 15,1987 the said Trilok Chand Along with Vijay Kumar and Yogesh Kumar trading as M/s. drakes International moved a petition under Section 44 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) alleging assignment of the said trade mark in their favor and on that basis got themselves registered as proprietors of the same. On May 8,1988 Tilak Raj Bagga moved an application under Section 56 of the Act for rectification alleging that the assignment had been obtained by Trilok Chand and others by misrepresenting the fa...
Subhash Chand Vs. Trilok Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)576; 67(1997)DLT754; 1997RLR464
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The present respondent (petitioner before the Trial Court) sought eviction in respect of one room, one Kata with common use of W.C. on the first floor of property bearing No. 8362 constructed on plot No. 112, Model Basti, hear Filmistan, New Delhi. The eviction was sought on the ground of bonafide requirement. The case set up by landlord was that he possessed two rooms on the ground floor, one room on the first floor and two rooms on the second floor whereas his family members consisted of himself, his wife, four children two aunts and his mother. Keeping in view the number of his family, he required minimum 8 rooms, whereas in fact he was in possession of five living rooms. The ground floor rooms were used for commercial purpose. He, thereforee, required additional accommodation to accommodate his family. So far as two mezzanines rooms.were concerned, those were being used for storing the goods. Out of the two rooms on the second floor, one room was being used by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »