Delhi Court March 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 21 of about 205 results (0.018 seconds)Sushila Dahas Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)632; 78(1999)DLT388
N.G. Nandi, J.1. Petitioner is a widow. Statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. of the complainant implicating the petitioner, has been read by Mr. Pawan Behl, learned APP. 2. In view of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 437, Cr.P.C., the petitioner would be entitled to the relief under Section 438, Cr.P.C. 3. In the event of the arrest of the petitioner, on her furnishing a surety for the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and personal bond in the like sum to the satisfaction of the I.O./Arresting Officer, she is ordered to be released on bail on condition that she will join investigations as and when required by notice under Section 160, Cr.P.C. ...
Tag this Judgment!Alfred Dunhill Limited Vs. Kartar Singh Makkar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)789
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit seeking injunction against the defendant to prevent passing off and rendition of accounts. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for interim injunction. 2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of England and has its principal office at 30, Duke Street, St. Jame's London, Swix6DL, United Kingdom. The plaintiff is a highly reputed company engaged in the business, inter alias of manufacturing and marketing a wide variety of goods including ready-made garments and other textile articles under the trademark 'DUNHILL. The trade mark 'DUNHILL' has been used on a very extensive scale for very many years. The products of plaintiff are known all over the world and the trademark 'DUNHILL' belonging to plaintiff company has acquired global reputation. Plaintiff's various products are available for sale at the duty free shops and stores of the Indian Armed ...
Tag this Judgment!Nina International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)201; 78(1999)DLT524
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. In Suit No. 3016/89 the plaintiff (hereinafter called the 'owner') has prayed for the following reliefs :'In view of the foregoing it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to decree the following reliefs to the plaintiff against the defendant: (a) Relief for ejectment of the defendant from the premises No. 6, Shopping Commercial Complex, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, as shown in the plan filed in this Hon'ble Court.(b) The defendant be directed to restore the property in its original condition and failing compliance by the defendant, the plaintiff be authorised to restore the said property in its original condition and a decree for the cost of the same amount of Rs. 20,000/- be passed in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant.(c) A decree for rent of the property from 1st August to 12th August, 1989, amounting to Rs. 15,000/-.(d) A decree for the contumacious use and occupation of the property from 13th August, 1989 to October, ...
Tag this Judgment!Prince Gutka Ltd. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)743; 78(1999)DLT693
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. This petition is directed against notice issued to the petitioner for offence under Section 7 read with Sections 16 and Section 2(ix)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules 32(e) and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter called the 'Act' and the 'Rules' respectively for short).1.2. The petitioner contends that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that since each packet contained 5.5g of the product, the particulars required under Clause (b) or (e) and (f) were not required to be mentioned on the packet. It is also contended that the First Proviso below Clause (f) of Rule 32 of the Act specifically provides that if any package weighs less than 20g particulars required under Clause (b) need not be specified. The learned Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that Sub-clause (iii) to the Fifth Proviso below Rule 32(f) specifically provided that if net contents in any package of food weighs 20g or 20ml or less, then the re...
Tag this Judgment!Saroj Khemka Vs. Indu Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT120; 1999(49)DRJ719
Vijender Jain, J.1. Revision petition has been filed aggrieved by the order of the Additional Rent Controller rejecting the leave to defend application of the petitioner-tenant.2. Mr. R.P. Bansal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the petition was bad for mis-joinder of I.D. Khemka, the husband of the petitioner as he was not a tenant. Another contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that premises were taken for composite purposes i.e. residential-cum-non-residential purposes. Main stress of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the premises were not required by the respondent bona finely for her residence or for her family. Lastly, it was contended by Mr. Bansal that the affidavit of property broker showing that the respondent was interested in selling the property after getting it vacated from the present petitioner has not been considered by the learned Additional Rent Controller while rejecting the...
Tag this Judgment!