Delhi Court April 2003 Judgments

East African (i) Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wallace Pharmaceuticals Ltd. a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi74; 105(2003)DLT293; 2003(27)PTC18(Del); 2003(3)RAJ119

R.C. Jain, J. 1. Plaintiff-company has filed this application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking an ad interim injunction for restraining the defendants, their servants, reatailers, stockists, distributors, representatives and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in pharmaceutical preparations under the trademark `REVOX' or any other trademark identical with or deceptively similar to the trademark `RIVOX' of the plaintiff.2. The relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of the application are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction, passing off, damages and delivery up etc. against the defendants with the averments and allegations that it is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing pharmaceuticals for the last about 16 years and is a reputed company in the pharmaceutical trade. Out of many well known trademarks of the plainti...

Gulshan Kumar Ahuja Vs. Veena Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2004)BC301; 4(2003)CCR383; 107(2003)DLT725

O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17th November, 2001 passed by learned MM whereby learned MM ordered for clubbing of two complaint cases being No. 53/2000 and 54/2000 filed by the petitioner against the respondent.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner filed two complaints vide complaint Nos. 53/2000 and 54/2000 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the respondent on the basis of dishonouring of cheque Nos. 073386 dated 16th April, 2000 and 073385; dated 16th February, 2000 amounting to Rs. 50,000/- each. Both these cheques were presented for encashment on the same date and both cheques were dishonoured with the remarks 'funds insufficient'. Petitioner issued a legal notice. After summoning, accused / respondent had put in appearance and filed an application for consolidation of two complaint cases so that these can be tried together in view of Sections 219/220, Cr.P.C...

Sadhana JaIn Vs. P. Sudhir

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(76)DRJ15; 2004(173)ELT231(Del)

ORDERO.P. Dwivedi, J.1. Through this petition which is under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings in a complaint under Sections 132 and 135(2)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the 'Act') against her instituted by the Director pf Revenue Intelligence.2. Briefly narrated, the facts leading to this case are that on 28.8.1998, complainant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence filed a complaint under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Act against M/s.DCP Associates Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, Ajit Jain and petitioner Sadhana Jain. Ajit Jain, husband of the petitioner was arrayed as accused No. 2 being the Managing Director of the said company and the petitioner herein was cited as accused No. 3 being the director of the said company. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused No. 1 was importing various types of synthetic linings from Taiwan through Chennai Port. A raid was conducted at the premises of the company on 30.1.1996 and some imported synthetic l...

Delhi and District Cricket Association Vs. Harsimron Singh Sandhu and ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 1.2.2003, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 273/2002 entitled Shri Harsimron Singh Sandhu and Anr. v. M/s. Delhi and District Cricket Association, Ferozshah Kotla Stadium, New Delhi. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, briefly stated are that the respondents had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the complainants had purchased four tickets each of Rs. 2,000/-, through Canara Bank, for witnessing the One Day Cricket International Match which was to be played between India and England at Ferozshah Kotla Stadium, New Delhi on 31.1.2002. It was stated that on the appointed day the complainants along with other valid ticket hol...

B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Limited Vs. Smt. Pushpa Sharma

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 5.2.2003, passed by District Forum Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 428/2002/DF-VII-entitled Smt. Pushpa Sharma v. The Executive Engineer, Delhi Vidyut Board. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Smt. Pushpa Sharma had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that she had purchased property bearing No. C-23A, Gali No. 9, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi from one Shri Mahavir Vats on power of attorney on 15.10.1993. It was stated that in the above said property, so purchased on power of attorney by the respondent, there was a domestic light connection and after the purchase of property by her, the respondent Smt. Pushpa Sharma, approached the appellant with the req...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Maya Devi

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 23.3.2002, passed by District Forum No. II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 2868/1997 entitled Smt. Maya Devi v. Delhi Development Authority. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Smt. Maya Devi had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that the appellant Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA) had floated the Ninth Self Finance Scheme, 1996, which was opened on 8.8.1996 and closed on 20.9.1996. It was stated that the respondent had applied for allotment of a flat under the above said scheme vide Application No. 110749 on 20.9.1996 and had made the initial deposit of Rs. 50,000/- as ernest money. It was stated that the appellan...