Delhi Court May 2003 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.
Mr. Vijender Singh S/O Shri Sarup Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)606; 105(2003)DLT261; 2003(69)DRJ641; 2004(1)SLJ86(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule. 2. The petitioner was appointed as conducted in the year 1984. On 14.2.1993, petitioner met with an accident causing loss of his right hand and was unable to perform the duties of a conductor. Petitioner was retired prematurely on medical grounds. It is the case of the petitioner that the retirement of the petitioner was in contravention of the circular dated 15.10.73 and 20.1.92 i.e., without being asked for option for redesignation on a subordinate or alternative post. 3. Mr. D.N. Vohra counsel for the petitioner has stated that in view of the judgment of Baljeet Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation DLT 286 and other decision passed by this Court as well as Supreme Court , the respondent is under an obligation to provide alternative suitable job to the persons who have incurred disability during the course of employment. 4. Mr. Vibhu Shankar counsel for the respondent has invited attention of the Court to the judgment of Delhi Transport Corporation v. Shri ...
S. Jagjit Singh Bhatia Vs. S. Balbir Singh Bhatia and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)302; 105(2003)DLT70; 2003(69)DRJ262
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. By the present application, defendant No. 4, Smt. Iqbal Kaur, aged about 80 years, seeks a restraint against her sons, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and their children from interfering with her possession of second floor of house No. A-36, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, where she is residing. She further seeks to restrain the defendants from interfering with her free access to the premises. Defendant No. 4 also prays for directions to the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3, who are her sons, to pay a maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 10,000/- by each of them till the disposal of the suit.2. Defendant No. 4, Smt. Iqbal Kaur, is the mother of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 being widow of late Sardar Amar Singh Bhatia. The present application has been filed in a suit for partition, dissolution of partnership firms and rendition of accounts.3. Vide interim order dated 8.11.2001, passed in IA.10485/2001 parties were directed to maintain status quo in re...
Civcon Engineers Vs. Shri Puran Singh Sethi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)102; 105(2003)DLT202; 2003(70)DRJ266
Vikramajit Sen, J. IAs No. 8435-36/20021. The interpretation imparted to Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Hon'ble Supreme Court a quarter century ago, in M/s. Mechalec Engineers & Manufacturers v. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation, : [1977]1SCR1060 , still holds the field, and in conformity with this pronouncement, the following proposition have to be kept in perspective while deciding whether leave to defend the suit should be declined or granted:- '8 ... (a) If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a good defense to the claim on its merits the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend.(b) If the defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a fair or bona fide or reasonable defense although not a positively good defense the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend.(c) If the defendant discloses such facts as may b...
Uberoisons (Machines) Ltd. Vs. Samtel Color Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)138; 105(2003)DLT383; 2003(69)DRJ523
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a suit for possession as well as recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and damages. Suit for possession has become infructuous as during the pendency of the suit, possession was handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff. The suit that survives is for recovery of rent, mesne profits and damages. The relevant facts pleaded in this regard are as under:-2. On 27th November, 1989, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a lease agreement in respect of the basement floor along with a toilet on the ground floor of building No. 21, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the demised premises'). The lease was created for a period of 3 years beginning from 1st September, 1989 and was duly registered with the Sub Registrar, New Delhi. Some of the important terms as mentioned in the lease agreement are as under:-1) That the Lesser shall give and the Lessee shall take on rent the demised premises paying a monthly rent of Rs.3...
Corporation Bank Vs. Sushil Enterprises and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)467; 106(2003)DLT187; 2003(71)DRJ738; (2003)135PLR45
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,59,466/- under Order 34 Code of Civil Procedure and for a decree of declaration to the effect that the defendants no. 5 and 6 have no authority to revoke the General Power of Attorney dated 7.12.87 executed by them authorising the plaintiff to realize the rent of premises no. ND-6, Pitampura, Vishakha Enclave, New Delhi taken on lease by defendant no. 7, Bank and appropriate the same against the loan amount till the liability of defendants no. 1 and 2 is liquidated. Apart from this, the plaintiff has also sought a decree of perpetual injunction for restraining defendants no. 5 and 6 from revoking the said GPA and also for a decree of mandatory injunction to direct defendant no. 7 to continue to pay the rent to the plaintiff till the liability of defendant no. 1 is liquidated.2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that on 29.3.84 the plaintiff Bank granted in favor of defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. ...
Shri Chahal Varun Kumar, S/O Sh. Roshan Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi), ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2003
Reported in: 104(2003)DLT999; 2003(69)DRJ455; 2003(2)JCC1025; 2004(1)SLJ50(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Notice was wrongly sent to CBSE. Presence of Mr. Anil Kumar, advocate is dispensed with.2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that petitioner has applied for the post of Manager with Reserve Bank of India and petitioner appeared in written examination in terms of the advertisement of the respondent and thereafter the petitioner has also received call letter for interview. Thereafter, the respondent has informed the petitioner vide their telegram (which is at page 23 of the paper-book) not to come to the interview as petitioner was not qualified in terms of eligibility qua experience. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that once the petitioner has passed the written test and has been short-listed for interview, the respondent ought not to have cancelled the interview. He has also relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Jaiswal Vs . M/s Devi Mukherjee : [1992]1SCR1 and has also contended that th...
Archies Greetings and Gifts Limited Vs. Garg Plastic
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)180; AIR2003Delhi468; 105(2003)DLT806; 2003(27)PTC1(Del)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This review application seeks review and/or recall of order dated 17th May, 2000 passed by this Court. The original plaint filed by the Plaintiff Archies Greetings & Gifts Limited prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, Garg Plastic from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in photo frames and wall clocks and similar other reliefs on the ground of violation of infringement of the registered Trade Mark 'Archies' and for other ancillary reliefs. For the purpose of this review petition, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the matter. However, by an order dated 17th May, 2000, this Court disposed of the suit by passing the following order:'S. No. 2611/99 The learned counsel for the defendant states that the defendant will exhaust the existing goods said to be infringing the plaintiff's trademark within two months from today. The learned counsel for both the parties agree that a decree be passed in terms of the prayers made in Para 22...
Micronix India Vs. Mr. J.R. Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)524; 105(2003)DLT239; 2003(26)PTC593(Del); 2003(3)RAJ100
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The short controversy involved in this suit is whether the trademark `MICROTEL' used by the defendant is deceptively similar to the trade mark `MICRONIX' of which the plaintiff is the registered proprietor and as such amounts to infringement of its trademark. Second objection is with regard to the identical use of logo. Logo `M' is being used by the plaintiff. The defendant is also using the same logo though on the well of the letter M the word `I' appears. Third grievance is with regard to the two labels used by the defendant which according to the plaintiff are deceptively similar as according to the plaintiff cartons, labels being used by it are having unique colour scheme, placement which are literary work and thereforee use of the identical labels and cartons amounts to infringement of copyright. Fourth grievance is use of the identical name of firm of the plaintiff by the defendant. Plaintiff's firm's name is MICRONIX INDIA whereas defendant has adopted the nam...
Mr. S.M. Singhvi Vs. Bestavision Electronics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC124; [2004]118CompCas742(Delhi); 105(2003)DLT126; 2003(71)DRJ36; [2003]46SCL183(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The point raised by the Respondent in this case is that the winding up petition is not maintainable by virtue of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA for short). This question has already generated several decisions by the Apex court but the nodes appears to have drawn a dichotomy of opinion.2. For facility of reference, Section 22(1) of SICA is reproduced below: '22. Suspension of legal proceedings, contract, etc. -- (1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under th...
Subros Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT626TriDel
1. In these two appeals filed by M/s. Subros Limited, arising out of a common Order-in-Original No. 9/2002 dated 28-6-2002 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, the issue involved is whether the different goods cleared from one or both the Plants of the Appellants constitute car air-conditioner kit not eligible for exemption from payment of Special Excise Duty under Notification No. 22/2000-C.E., dated 6-3-2000 or parts of car air-conditioner eligible to the exemption.2.1 Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants have two Plants, viz., Plant I and Plant II in which they manufacture various parts and accessories of car air-conditioning system for supplies to various manufacturers of Motor Vehicles; that in Plant I, they manufacture cooling unit assembly and condensing unit assembly; that in Plant II they manufacture the gas compressor, parts of gas compressor and other fitting parts like valves, pipes, tubes, etc., necessary for the fitment of the ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »