Delhi Court August 2002 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.
Madhubhan Holiday Inn Vs. Holiday Inn Inc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT306
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit Nos. 1626 of 1983 and 1627 of 1983. Both the suits were clubbed and evidence was recorded only in Suit No. 1626 of 1983 titled Holiday Inns Inc. v. Kapoor Holiday Inn and on the strength of the evidence in the said case both the suits were disposed of by a common judgment and decree dated 21.5.1986. The appellants herein are defendants in suits and the respondent herein is the plaintiff.2. The respondent company. Holiday Inn Inc is a registered company of the United States of America and has acquired global reputation. The respondent learnt that the appellants were using the words 'Holiday Inn' on its visiting cards, menu cards, tariff cards, stationery and other printed materials relating to its lodgings and restaurant, towels, crockery, cutlery, key, chains/rings and diverse goods relating to its lodgings and restaurant. The said use was in flagrant violation ...
Shri K.S. Sethi and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT738; (2002)IIILLJ981Del; 2004(1)SLJ467(Delhi)
Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. The petitioners are invoking the inherent and supervisory powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C for quashing the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate whereby he on a criminal complaint filed by respondent No. 2 Labour Enforcement (Central.) has taken cognizance' of the offence under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (the Act) and has summoned the petitioners to stand trial.2. Succinctly stated respondent No. 2 Labour Enforcement (Central), Ministry of Labour Govt. of India filed a criminal complaint under Section 23 of the Act complaining violation of notification dated 9th December 1976 issued under Section 10(1) of the said Act, by the petitioner No. 3 company M/s IRCON International Limited and thus rendering itself liable to be prosecuted for offence under Section 23 of the Act. The Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance and ordered summoning of the petitioners for standing trial . The petitioners are aggrieved ...
Jai Bhagwan Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT170
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and sentence dated 7.8.1993 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 56/91. Appellant Jai Bhagwan was tried along with Phool Hussein under Section 302/34 IPC.2. The short controversy which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the case is in fact a case of suicide or has an incident of murder been given the shape of a suicide case? 3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under.4 . On 6 .1 .1991 appellant, Jai Bhagwan, reported to the police at PP Palam Colony that Raj Rani widow of his elder brother has committed suicide. D.D. No. 21 was registered and was marked to SI Mahinder Singh, in charge, PP Palam Colony, who along with HC Tej Singh, Constable Bhup Singh and Constable Matloob Ali conducted the investigation. They all proceeded to House No. 7B/2 J-11, Hanuman Mandir Marg, Palam Nagar, Palam Colony. This addr...
Ram Chander Vs. P.K. Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT706
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.' ) the petitioner has prayed for quashing of complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector, (respondent No. 1) under Sections, 18(c) & 18(4)(i) read with Sections 27(b)/27(a) & 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act'). 2. Facts in brief are that on 17th March, 1986, at 12 noon Mr. R.P. Negi, Drugs Inspector along with Rajender Parsad, S.I. of P.S. Sadar Thana, Delhi on receipt of secret Information reached the shop of M/s. Sonu Packers, Sadar Bazar, Delhi of which the petitioner was the partner. He was found in possession of 25 Kg of white flat tablets scored on one side and Imprinted on the other side with the word 'Wyeth', which were found Kept in a polythene sack and two card board boxes. The average weight of these tablets was found, between 100 to 115 mg.. The Wyeth tablet is a drug within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act (hereinafter 'the tablet...
D.K. Oswal and ors. Vs. Mr. Akshay Finance and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas577(Delhi); [2004]50SCL303(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J. CA 641/2002 & 642/20021. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.CA 685 & 686/2002 in CP 21/19862. Mr. Chandiok, Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents, states that the applications may be allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Ordered accordingly. The amended applications are taken on record.CA 639/2002, 640/2002, 707/2002 IN cp 21/19863. In order to fully appreciate the facts and issues that have been brought into focus in the context of the reliefs prayed for these applications, it is necessary to make a precis of the annals of this family litigation. Shri D.K. Oswal filed Petitions CP Nos. 21/1986 read with Rule 9 of the Company (Courts) Rules, for the rectification of the Register of Members of the Companies which were controlled by the Oswal family. These Companies were Akshay Finance and Trading Company, Paras Finance and Trading Company, Arihant Investment and Trading Co., Victor Investment and Mercantile Co., Ambar Investment and Mercantile Co. and Adi...
S.K. Kapur vs. N.D.M.C.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT347
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner was employed with NDMC as Head Assistant and sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.3.1981. Petitioner was entitled to medical benefits while in service. NDMC did not have medical benefits for the retired employees. A proposal to extend themedical facilities to retired employees was put up before the Council. This proposal was approved vide Resolution No. 3(xviii) dated 19.12.1996. By the said Resolution, it was decided, in principle, to extend the benefit of medical facilities to the retired employeesof NDMC. The details of the scheme were to be worked out on the pattern of CGHS. NDMC thereupon worked out the detailed of the scheme and put up before the Council for consideration and approval. The Council vide Resolution dated 26.9.1997 approved the scheme for provision of medical benefits to retiring and retired employees. It was further resolved that the scheme would be eff...
Shri Gautam Nimani Vs. S.N. Surekha and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT771
V.S. Aggrwal, J.1. The present petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the application filed by the petitioner (Gautam Nimani ) for recalling the summoning order dated 3rd December, 1997.2. Some of the relevant facts are that the respondent had filed a criminal complaint with respect to the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It had been asserted by the respondent/complainant that the respondent/complainant M/s S.N. Surekha & Co. is a sole proprietorship concern. The petitioner had purchased shares of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills. Acting on the representation of the petitioner the complainant had agreed to sell the shares. As per rules of Bombay Stock Exchange, the petitioner was under an obligation to clear all the dues of the respondent within a period of 15 days. The respondent/complainant is entitled to recover the outstanding dues with Interest at 3% per mensum. It is alleged that ch...
Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Mermaid Packages and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC529
S.K. Agarwal. J. 1. The plaintiff has filed the above suit for a decree of Rs. 8,71,090/- against the defendants with interest @ Rs. 18.75 p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. The defendants could not be served by ordinary process and were served by publication in the newspaper 'Statesman'; by affixation at their last known address and at the notice board of the High Court for the date fixed in the court. None appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte 17.12.1997. Plaintiff was permitted to lead ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit Along with documents. 2. The plaintiff in support of its case filed the affidavit of V.P. Ganeshan, Chief Manager & Principal Officer, of the plaintiff bank who has stated that he being a principal officer and constituted attorney of the bank was competent to file the affidavit; and that defendant No. 1 M/s. Mermaid Packages as a partnership concern constituted by defendants 2 & 3 opened the ...
Girdhar Silk Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Epf Appellate Tribu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT139; (2003)ILLJ489Del
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This letters patent appeal is against the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 27th May, 2002, dismissing the Civil Writ Petition No. 3394/2002, filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against the interim Order of 75% per cent pre-deposit of the amount determined under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') demanded from the petitioner pending appeal by the Tribunal.2. In an appeal filed under Section 7(1) of the Act, exemption was sought under the proviso for pre-deposit of the 75% amount determined and the said application preferred by the appellant was disallowed and it was asked to deposit 75% of the amount. The relevant portions of Section 7(1) and 7(o) of he Act reads as follows:'7-I. Appeals to the Tribunal:- (1) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by Central Government, or an order passed by the Central, or any authority, under he proviso to Sub-section (3), or Sub-Se...
Capt. Kapil Raina Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT741
ORDER1. Petitioner was first a tenant in Flat No. B-46 at Patpar Ganj allotted to one Arun Diwanwala, a member of R-4 society. He later purchased it after paying full consideration amount and executing relevant documents including a power of attorney and Conveyance Deed and is said to have acquired free hold rights by now. He alleges that thereafter office bearers of respondent society started harassing him and raising demands. He was asked to pay an 'entry fee/power of attorney charges' of Rs. 1 lac and was threatened of electricity and water supply disconnection and of being thrown out of the flat if he failed to satisfy the demands. He resisted the demand and pleaded that he was liable to pay only such charges as were recoverable from the original member (vendor) and not any unauthorised charges like entry fee /power of attorney charges which was not livable by the society under any law. But despite this, the committee members interfered in his quiet possession of the premises and h...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »