Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1997 Page 13 of about 214 results (0.019 seconds)S.B.L. Ltd. Vs. Himalaya Drug Co.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)757; AIR1998Delhi126; 1997(2)ARBLR650(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT803
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J. 1. The defendants have come up in appeal feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12-7-1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (Original Side) confirming the ex parte order of injunction and rejecting the defendants, application for vacation of the ex parte order of injunction dated 23-5-1996 in a trade mark case. 2. The plaintiff Himalaya Drug Co. is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Ayurvedic medical preparations since 1930. One of the preparation manufactured and marketed by the plaintiff is under the trade mark Liv-52. It is a liver tonic prescribed for liver disorder and to protect the liver against various dysfunction, damage and hepatotoxins. It is also advised for promotion appetite and growth. The trade mark Liv. 52 is registered since 10-7-1957 in Class 5 as medical proportion for the treatment of disorders of liver. The Liv. 52 label is also registered in Class 5 as medical pharmaceutical and Ayurvedic preparation and substances since 15-2-1...
Tag this Judgment!Satyam Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)789; 1997(2)ARBLR259(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT865
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The Arbitrator has filed the Award dated 31st July, 1992 Along with the proceedings in this Court. The same were taken on record and notice of filing of the Award was issued to the parties directing them to file their respective objections. Respondent-Delhi Development Authority filed its objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Reply to these objections was filed by the claimant M/s. Satyam Builders. The Arbitrator allowed the claims of the petitioner and rejected the counter-claim of respondent-DDA by a speaking Award and by assigning reasons. (2) The Arbitrator was appointed as Sole Arbitrator by respondent-DDA vide its communication dated 14th July, 1990 to decide the disputes which had arisen between the parties by virtue of powers conferred under the provisions of Clause 25 of the Agreement executed between the parties. Clause 25 of the Agreement stipulated that disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrati...
Tag this Judgment!Anil JaIn Vs. Madhunam Appliances (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)714; 1997(2)ARBLR325(Delhi); 68(1997)DLT194; 1997(42)DRJ724; (1998)118PLR56
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) The appellant through the present appeal has taken exception to the judgment and order dated August 19, 1996 passed by the Additional District Judge whereby the learned lower Court allowed the application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act and made the award dated 3rd May, 1988 passed by Shri L.M.Asthana, Arbitrator a rule of the Court.(2) Facts in brief which led to the presentation of the present appeal are as under: that the respondent herein moved an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act for making the award alluded to above a rule of the Court and to pass a decree in terms thereof on the ground that the respondent are a company with limited liability having their registered office at 82/2 (33) Chandni Chowk, Delhi Shri Vikas Chander is the Director in-charge of the respondent. He is the principal officer of the said company and is thereforee, competent to sign and verify the petition. The appellant and the respondent No. 1 her...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Mohan @ Mohan @ Pappu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)586; 1997CriLJ4266; 68(1997)DLT779; 1997(42)DRJ469
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is an application for bail by one of the accused. I have heard the parties at length. In this case the only role assigned to the petitioner is that of exhortation and not handling fire arm or taking part in actual shooting which resulted in killing of one person and injuries to another.(2) As per the allegations contained in the charge-sheet, one Pawan Kumar Gulati Along with his cousins who had their office at 26, Parda Bagh, Darya Ganj, New Delhi had come down to his office at 4.30 p.m. allegedly to go back to his house. While they were standing on the side walk near the car, the petitioner and his brothers Mohar Singh and Jai Chand Along with a fourth un-identified person came from their office across the road, also in Daryaganj, in white Maruti Car. It is further alleged that the car by which the petitioner was traveling was being driven by his brother Mohar Singh, the principal accused, who turned back the car and stopped it near the deceased and his cousins...
Tag this Judgment!Shivkar Exports Vs. State Bank of Patiala
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)672; II(1997)BC506; 67(1997)DLT625; 1997(42)DRJ325
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The plaintiff has sued the defendant for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs together with interest at 22% from the date of institution of the suit till realization. The sum of Rs.4 lakhs claimed in the suit comprises, Rs.2,26,127.00 being the amount claimed to be due in respect of the documents presented under the Letter of Credit by the plaintiff to the defendant bank. A sum of Rs.1,69,000.00 is claimed as interest at 22% P.A.on the amount of Rs.2,26,127.00 from 25th December, 1981 till 21st December, 1984, the date of institution. Another sum of Rs.5,000.00 is claimed towards telex and other miscellaneous expenses.(2) The main question that arises for consideration in the suit is whether the defendant had negotiated the Bills of Exchange under the Letter of Credit, as a holder in due course for value and was, thereforee, liable to the plaintiff for the amount of the Bill? or whether the defendant had only accepted the Bills of Exchange for collection and/or had negotiated the ...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Roy Choudhary Vs. State (Central Bureau of Investigation)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)490; 1997CriLJ4204; 1998(1)Crimes95; 68(1997)DLT484; 1997(42)DRJ615
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This is a Revision petition against the order of framing charge and for setting aside the charge framed on 23.9.1994 under Section 409 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Briefly, the case of the prosecution in the charge-sheet (Police report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure) is that an Fir was lodged on 22.4.1985 alleging that Shri S.S. Sethi, Assistant Engineer (P&T;), L.K. Ahuja, Junior Engineer (P&T;), A.K.Rai, Junior Engineer (P&T;), S.N. Chatterjee, K.D. Mitra, two local representatives of M/s B.K. Roy Choudhary & Company, Calcutta in league with each other misappropriated 75 Mt of cement, 20.705 Mt of mild steel. Further allegation is that the petitioner was a partner of M/s B.K. Roy Choudhary & Company. The said company was awarded the contract of constructing staff quarters at Pankha Road for Post and Telegraph Department. The company was also awarded the contract for construction of telephone exchange at Ballabhgarh (Haryana) in the yea...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Syed Ahmed Bhukhari
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997CriLJ4608; 68(1997)DLT274; 1997(42)DRJ472
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This Revision petition is filed against the order dated 14th January, 1997 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi declining the permission to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution against respondent No. 1 on the ground of non-application of mind by the Public Prosecutor while filing the application under Section 321 Criminal Procedure Code .(2) The facts giving rise to the present petition in brief are that a report under Section 193 Criminal Procedure Code . was filed against accused Syed Ahmed Bhukhari the Naib Imam of Jama Masjid of Delhi by the prosecution on the allegations that on 22.1.1993 from Jama Masjid accused brought haltered and disaffection towards the Government established by law. It was further alleged that in a statement he attacked the constitutionally established Government, some political parties and some religious community. As per the allegations of the prosecution an offence under Section 124A Indian Penal Code of sedition w...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Rattan Kul Bhushan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT591
Arun B. Saharya, J. (1) This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against award and decree dated 6.4.1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, determining the amount of compensation payable to the respondent for acquisition of his land situated in village Gharauli, Delhi. Besides enhancement of compensation the learned Additional District Judge has also awarded other statutory benefits, inter (ilia, of interest under Section 28 of the Act. Interest under Section 28 of the Act has been awarded @ 90% per annum from the date of taking over possession for a period of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till payment of the enhanced compensation.(2) The piece of land in question was acquired by notification under Section 4 of the Act dated l7.11.1980 and the Collector made Award No.l8/83-84on2.7.1983.(3) In appeal. Union of India has challenged only the award of interest in excess of the rate of 9% per a...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Chand Gupta Vs. Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 68(1997)DLT876; 1997(42)DRJ555
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) Prem Chand Gupta, appellant before us, was employed with M.C.D. and was appointed on temporary basis as Section Officer. He was offered a temporary post of Section Officer (Civil) by letter dated 5.5.1964. The terms and conditions of the employment mentioned in the reverse of the said order. He was to render one year's satisfactory service before he could be fixed on a permanent post if the same was available.(2) The post against which the appellant was appointed was sanctioned for a limited duration which was to expire on 31.8.1964. On 1.8.1964, the appellant was informed that his services were no longer be required with effect from 1.9.1964.(3) The appellant was again appointed and posted with effect from 1.10.1964 against a vacant post caused by the termination of services of another employee. Thereafter decision was taken by the Corporation to abolish the post of Section Officers in Building and Factories Department and the appellant was served with a notice ...
Tag this Judgment!H.C. Shastri Vs. DolphIn Canpack (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)798; [1998]93CompCas201(Delhi); 68(1997)DLT471; 1997(42)DRJ702
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) By this common order the following interim applications are being disposed of: IA.11883/95 under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC; IA. 11882/95 under Order Xxxix Rules 1 & 2, CPC; IA. 11881 under Order Xxii Rules 1 & 4, CPC; IA. 4230/96 under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151, CPC; IA. 12160/96 under Order Vi Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code and IA. 12838/96 under Section 47 CPC. These applications are moved by Smt.Vandana Goyal on behalf of Master Vinay Prakash Goyal as his next friend and mother and/or for him and self (hereinafter referred to as `applicants/intervenors').(2) Before dealing with the specific prayers made in the above applications and the reliefs sought by the applicant/intervenors, it would be necessary to briefly set out the facts leading to the filing of the above applications.(3) The basic premise on which these applications are based is the claim of Mrs. Vandana Goyal that she is the legally wedded wife of Late Shri S.P. Goyal, defendant No. 2 in th...
Tag this Judgment!