Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 13 of about 321 results (0.022 seconds)Relaxo Rubber Limited and anr. Vs. Selection Footwear and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)292; AIR2000Delhi60; 81(1999)DLT202; 1999(50)DRJ856
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1.This is a suit for permanent injunction infringement of copyright and trade mark, passing off and rendition of accounts. summons were ordered to be issued to the Defendants on 14.8.1998 for the next date of hearing which was 14.10.1998. On 14.10.1998 the matter was adjourned to 22.1.1999. On 22.1.1999 a request for time to file written Statement and Reply was made and an adjournment was granted for this purpose. On 18.3.1999, which was the next date of hearing, yet on another request further time of four weeks for filing the written statement was granted. When the matter came up on 21.7.1999 before the Joint Registrar(o) it was noted that the written statement had not been filed and hence the matter was placed before court. On 6.8.1998 there was no appearance on behalf of Defendants. In these circumstances, Order 8 Rule 10 was relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and it was pressed before me that the court should pronounce judgment against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mithilesh Kumari and Others Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)282; 81(1999)DLT264; 1999(50)DRJ832
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioners who are 13 in numbers were admitted to the course of Nursery Teachers Training with Respondent No. 4, namely, G.R. Memorial Institute of Nursery Teachers' Training have filed this petition as their admissions are cancelled. Admittedly, all these petitioners have secured 41% to 44% of marks in Senior Secondary (10+2) Examination. It is also admitted position that National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE)/Respondent No.3, which is a statutory body has fixed norms and standards for Nursery Teachers Training Education as per which for admission to this course a student should secure minimum 45% marks in Senior Secondary (10+2) Examination. Notwithstanding the fact that they had less than 45% marks, they were admitted to the Nursery Teachers Training Course by Respondent No. 4 after getting admissions to the said course in July, 1998. The petitioners took their semester examinations in December, 1998.2. When Respondent No. 2 namely, State Council for E...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Petrol Dealer Association and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)365; 81(1999)DLT400
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1.This judgment will dispose of two petitions, C.W.P. No. 2876/98 and C.W.P. No. 5753/98 as common questions arise for consideration in these petitions. 2. The first petition, C.W.P. No. 2876/98 impugns the revised Marketing Discipline Guidelines which became effective from 12th May, 1998 and the second petition C.W.P. No. 5753/98 challenges the same guidelines as well as the earlier guidelines issued in the year 1995. 3. Petitioner No. 1 in the first petition is stated to be an Association of about 300 persons who are running petroleum products retail outlets commonly known as petrol filling-cum-service stations. There are four oil companies which are under the control of the respondent namely, Ministry of Petrolium and Oil and Natural Gas, Government of India. These companiesare as follows:- (a) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (b) I.B.P. Company Ltd. (c) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (d) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. 4. It is next stated that all the above fo...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Ram @ Lala Vs. State (N.C.T.)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)345; 81(1999)DLT294; 1999(51)DRJ52
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1.The appellant-accused has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 12th May, 1997 convicting him under Section 376 IPC and the order dated 14th May, 1997 sentencing him to undergo RI for 10 years and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- passed by an Additional Session Judge. In default of payment of fine he was to further undergo RI for 6 months. 2. Case of the prosecution as borne out from the chargesheet filed under Section 173 Cr. P.C. is that on 30th December 1995 Smt. Bala, PW-5 Along with her daughter Puja came to PS Nand Nagri and she made statement to ASI Gopal Singh, PW-8 to the effect that she resides Along with her children in House No. B-5/350 and at about 2 PM while she was washing clothes her children - Rahul and Puja were playing inside the house. Accused who resides in the neighborhood, came to the house and after taking Puja, aged about 3 years in his lap he went to first floor accommodation of the said house. After about 15-20 minutes he came down together...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Kishan Khanna Vs. Mela Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)431; 81(1999)DLT472; 1999(51)DRJ136; 1999RLR495
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1.An application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the petitioner before the Addl. Rent Controller which was allowed by the Addl. Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the decision of the Addl. Rent Controller, the landlord filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which reversed the finding of the Addl. Rent Controller and rejected the amendment of the petitioner. Mr. Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the appeal itself under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was not maintainable in view of the fact that allowing of amendment is not an appealable order and on this short ground alone this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution be allowed, quashing the order of the Rent Control Tribunal. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Smt. Bhagawati Devi and Ors. v. Haji S.M. Sayeed 1979 (2) RCR 142 and has contended that generally no appeal lie against an order made under Order 6...
Tag this Judgment!Maharani Creations (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commerz Bank A.G. and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)548; 81(1999)DLT478; 2000(52)DRJ213
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.C.M. NO. 4059/19981. By this order I propose to dispose of the application registered as C.M. No. 4059/98 filled by the petitioner praying for condensation of delay in filing the aforesaid petition.2. In the aforesaid petition, the petitioner has sought for setting aside the orders dated 24.10.1996 and dated 22.8.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge in suit No. 423/1993.3. The petitioner instituted the aforesaid suit for recovery of Rs.4,50,000/- against the respondents which was registered as Civil Suit No.328/1988. The suit was initially instituted in this court which was, however, transferred to the District Court after pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court was raised to Rs. Five Lakhs.4. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, respondent No. 1 moved an application under Section 20 CPC seeking for dismissal of the suit qua respondent No. 1 for want of territorial jurisdiction. Respondent No. 1 in the said application stated that the suit was not...
Tag this Judgment!Vantage Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Satnam Singh Gill and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT291
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1.This is an application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by defendant No. 2 for rejection of the plaint. Defendants had also filed the written statement, to which the plaintiff filed replication. 2. The plaintiff had instituted the suit for recovery of Rs 5,30,000/with interest. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff Company was on the look out for purchase of land and had identified lands,200 bighas of land at Bulandshahar, U.P. belonging to one Mr. Lajpatrai and 45 bighas of land near Haldwani belonging to M/s. Pushpanjali Sales Pvt.Ltd. 3. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that a sum of Rs. 7 lacs was advanced to the defendant No. 1 for payment towards the land to be purchased from M/s. Pushpanjail Sales Pvt. Ltd. A sum of Rs 3 lacs was paid through two cheques which defendant No. 2 delivered to M/s. Pushpanjail Sales Pvt. Ltd. and were duly encashed. A further sum of Rs. 4 lacs was advanced by two bearer cheques of Rs. 2 lacs each, which t...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Securities Limited Vs. M/S. Stickwell Fashions Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)617; [2000]102CompCas449(Delhi); 81(1999)DLT705
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1.The petitioner has filed this petition under Sections 433, 434(e) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent company. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner company consists of Chartered Accountants who have specialised in Financial Consultancy. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent contacted the petitioner for M/s. C.R.B. Markets Ltd. It was agreed that the petitioner shall be entitled to a brokerage at the rate of Rs. 0.50 per share on the deal amount. It is further alleged that the deal was clinched between the respondent company and M/s. CRB Capital Markets Ltd. Thereafter, the petitioner had sent a bill towards the brokerage for Rs. 9,15,625/- being the agreed amount, as charges for bought out deal of the 18,31,250 shares of the respondent with M/s. CRB Capital Markets Ltd. 3. It is further alleged that the respondent requested the petitioner to reduce the bill and the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Padam Chand JaIn Vs. Sh. Vimal Chand Jain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)714; 81(1999)DLT625; 1999RLR524
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed by the landlord aggrieved by the order of dismissal of eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement. The main challenge to the impugned order is that Additional Rent Controller in complete disregard to the size of the family, as mentioned in the eviction petition held that the requirement was not bona fide. The Additional Rent Controller has taken into consideration those rooms which were not habitable for the purpose of counting accommodation available in the hand of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the accommodation is required for his wife and himself. The petitioner is 65 years of age, his wife is 59 years of age. They have got one married son, his wife and have two grand sons aged 12 years and 6 years. Mr. Taneja, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has got two married daughters. They are also visiting the petitioner. The petitioner requires one Pooja...
Tag this Judgment!Col. Dhama B.S. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT255; 1999(51)DRJ15
A.K. Sikri, J.1. By this order I shall dispose of the CMs.2. In order to appreciate the submissions made by both the parties in support of their respective CMs it would be appropriate to notice the basic facts in the writ petition.3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition against order dated 5.6.1998. A perusal of the said order would show that it is an order by which warning of discharge from service is given to the petitioner. It states that there are four entries of punishment (three red ink entries and one black ink entry) given to the petitioner during his service career and one more punishment entry would render him liable for discharge of service under Rule 18(2)(g) (2i) of the Air Force Rules, 1969.4. Petitioner's contention is that the these entries were given unfairly and arbitrarily. Respondents have filed counter-affidavit justifying the recording of these entries and their issuing of warning letter dated 9th June, 1998. This is a matter which is to be considered wh...
Tag this Judgment!