Delhi Court April 2001 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.
All India Lawyers Union (Delhi-unit) Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: I(2001)ACC753; 2002ACJ2019; 2001IVAD(Delhi)751; 91(2001)DLT469; 2001(59)DRJ89
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed in public interest by an association of lawyers highlighting certain aspects relating to the desirability of enforcing certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988(in short the Act)in the mater of information to be given to the Tribunal regarding accidents by the police officials, as statutorily mandated under the Act. It has also been prayed that directive should be given to enact rules specifying procedural aspects and modalities in this regard. 2. Certain suggestions have been given to effectively combat traffic congestions, effective provision of medical aid to victims of accidents, action against erring drivers and early payment of compensation. It need not be impressed that Parliament from time to time has introduced amendments in the old Act as well as in the new Act in order to product the interest of the victims of the accidents and their heirs if the victims die. One such amendment has been introduced in th...
The Management of M/S. R.L. Marya Hosiery Vs. Smt. Deepa Sharma and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)1; 92(2001)DLT28; 2001(59)DRJ660; [2001(90)FLR21]
ORDERA.K.Sikri,J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner which is aimed against ex-parte award dated 27th October, 1993 passed by the Labour Court-IV. By that award the Labour Court has held that the services of respondent no.3 Prithviraj were terminated by the petitioner. illegally and unjustifiably. It has directed the re-instatement of respondent no.3 along with full backwages and continuity i n service. 2. The case of the petitioner set out in the petition is that the respondent no.3 was employed with the petitioner as an export manager who was solely and wholly in charge of Delhi office with all managerial and supervisory powers. He committed serious offence of breaking open the lock of the private room of Sh.R.L.Marya, the managing partner of the petitioner and took away the entire transaction containing various valuables, cash and documents. According to the petitioner, theft of the aforesaid valuables could be committed by the person having intimate knowledge of the va...
Sh. Suresh Aggarwal Vs. Sh. Satinder Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)44; AIR2001Delhi344; 92(2001)DLT82; 2001(59)DRJ828
ORDERA.K.SIKRI.J. 1. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 24th April, 1995 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. The Agreement to Sell is in respect of Plot No.103, Bahubali Enclave, Delhi. In the instant case as originally filed only defendant No.1 was imp leaded as party. Subsequently by order dated 10th December, 1999 defendants 2 and 3 were also imp leaded as parties.2. Briefly stated the suit is based on the averments that the defendant no.1 had agreed to sell the aforesaid plot(hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.26 lacs. Defendant No.1 was paid a sum of Rs.2 lacs as part sale consideration amount in part performance of the agreement to sell and was accepted by the defendant No.1 thereby leaving a balance amount of Rs.24 lacs. Balance amount was payable, as agreed in the agreement to sell, by 25th June, 1995. The plaintiff claims that this was...
Smithkline Beecham Plc and Another Vs. Mr. Sunil Singhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)849; 91(2001)DLT461; 2001(2)RAJ446
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. By way of a present objection, the Defendant No.2 has challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for the grant of a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing its Trademark and Copyright and also for Passing-Off. The Plaintiff is the proprietor of the Trade Mark PANADOL and PANADOL EXTRA, which is admittedly an invented word. It has been registered in Class 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Marks Act) with effect from 21.10.1982 in favor of the plaintiff. On 7.9.1999 the following ex parte ad interim orders were granted: 'I.A. No. 8797/99Notice for 31st January, 2000. The plaint and this application discloses that the Plaintiff is the registered owner of the mark PANADOL and has spent Millions of pounds on its advertisement and promotion since 1994. Its turn over in this period i.e. 1994-1998 is approximately 170 Million Pou...
Shri BulganIn Vs. M/S. Apex Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)931; 91(2001)DLT446; 2001(59)DRJ397
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This is an application filed by the Defendants 1 to 3 under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.'). It also contains a prayer for condensation of delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. The Applicants were proceeded ex parte on 30.9.1997, on which date of hearing the interim orders previously passed, were also made absolute. Subsequent thereto the suit was decreed by Judgment dated 16.3.1998. Thereafter I.A. 3429/98 was filed by the Plaintiff praying for possession of the suit premises and for the execution of the Sale Deed in accordance with the Decree. Notice of this application was ordered to issue to the Judgment Debtors/Applicants; and was served on them in the third week of May, 1998. The present application was filed on 12.8.1998. It is averred that none of the Applicants (Defendants 1 to 3) were ever served with a copy of the summons along with the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi-iv Vs. Shri Krishan Kumar Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)436; 92(2001)DLT355; 2001(60)DRJ258
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. (Oral) 1. These two reference applications involve the following common question, which has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-D ('Tribunal' in short) pursuant to the direction given by this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), for opinion of this Court:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the land in question was agricultural land and thereforee the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land was not taxable?'The dispute relates to assessment year 1972-73.2. Factual position in nutshell is as follows: assesseds Krishan Kumar Kapoor and R.K. Kapoor who are the sons of one Murlidhar Kapoor, inherited separate pieces of land form their father wherein agricultural operations were carried on till 1949-50, when in each case assessed's land was requisitioned by the Punjab Government for extracting earth for manufacture of br...
Revlon Inc and Another Vs. Hosiden Laboratories (India)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)59; 92(2001)DLT318; 2001(3)RAJ300
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction, passing of, infringement of trade mark and rendition of accounts etc.2. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff No.1 is a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. United Stated of America and is carrying on its business at the address given in the plaint. Plaintiff No.2 is a company incorporated under the laws of Switzerland and it is carrying on business at the address given in the plaint. It is a wholly owned company of the plaintiff No.1.3. The basic averments on the basis of which present suit is filed are that the plaintiffs are the registered proprietor of the trade mark 'JONTUE' in respect of cosmetics, perfumes etc. having registered the same in various countries of the world. The word 'JONTUE' is an invented word coined by the plaintiff and is not a dictionary word or a word that is used in common parlance. The said trade mark has also been duly registered in India by...
Pawan Prakash Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 60(2001)DLT392
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for restoration of his registration with the respondent DDA, for allotment of an LIG Flat under the HUDCO Pattern Scheme, 1979. Petitioner also prays that this name be considered in future draw of lots for allotment of the flat under the said Scheme.3. The facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may briefly be noted:(i) Petitioner had applied to the respondent Delhi Development Authority for allotment of an LIG Flat under the HUDCO Patter Scheme, 1979. Petitioner received intimation on 28th January, 1991 that he had been allotted a flat at Bindapur, Dwarka. The said flat happened to be a Janta category flat. Petitioner brought it to the attention of the respondents that he had not been allotted the flat for which he had applied. (ii) Taking into consideration the representation of the petitioner...
Yashoda Gupta Vs. Suniti Goyal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi20
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Plaintiff is one of the daughters of late Rai Saheb Om Prakash Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) who passed away on 29th November, 1982. Apart form the Plaintiff, the deceased left behind his widow and four other daughters.2. The other daughters of the deceased are Defendants No.1 to 4 while the widow was Defendant No.5. The widow has also passed away. It is, thereforee, now an unfortunate contest between the Plaintiff and her sisters for the estate of the deceased.3. According to the Plaintiff, the deceased left behind a plot and a building constructed thereon bearing No.5/17, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi. He also left behind some cash in banks and some securities.4. The Plaintiff filed a suit for partition of the property of the deceased. She claimed 1/6th share in the property. According to the averments made in the plaint, the Defendants (including the mother) wee trying to dispose of the immovable property and take away the moveable assets...
Mrs. Malini Mathrani and Others Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT239
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. This probate petition has been filed by petitioner no.1 claiming herself to be the executant of the registered Will dated 2nd February, 1993 executed by late Smt.Vidya A. Mathrani. Int he petition it is averred that Smt.Vidya A.Mathrani (hereinafter referred to as Testatrix, for short) executed the aforesaid Will dated 2nd Febraur, 1993 which was duty registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar at Delhi. The Testatrix died on 1st September, 1999. She left behind three married daughters - Smt.Chanra Tolwani, wife of Shri J.P.Tolwani (respondent no.3), Smt. Shobha Agnihotri, wife of Shri G.M.Agnihotri (respondent no.2) and Smt.Rajni Karkhanis, wife of Shri Anil Karkhanis (petitioner no.2).2. Smt. Vidya A. Mathrani, the deceased inherited the property bearing No.W-126A, Greater Kailash, Part I, New Delhi - 110048, from her late husband and became the sole and absolute owner of the said property by virtue of succession on the basis of the Will executed by here husb...