Delhi Court September 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.
Super Cassette Industries Limited Vs. Bathla Cassette Industries Pvt. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)572; 107(2003)DLT91; 2003(27)PTC280(Del); 2004(1)RAJ69
Mukul Mudgal J.1. This is an application for interim injunction in a suit asserting rights under Section 52(1)(j) of the Copyright Act(hereinafter referred to as `the Act). The plaintiff company is the manufacturer, producer and marketeer of pre-recorded audio cassettes and other records under the logo T Series. The plaintiff produced a sound recording under its banner T Series which was inter alias based on the song `Chalo Dildar Chalo' from the film `Pakeezah' by giving notice to the original producer Mahal Pictures under Section 52(1)(j) & Rule 21(2) (b) of the Copyright Act. Such a recording is known in the music business as a version recording and inter-alia involves the singing of a well-known song by a lesser known singer. The plaintiff gave prescribed royalty of Rs. 400 for producing 10, 000 copies to the original owner. When the defendant attempted to produce a version recording of the version recording of the plaintiff by treading the path carved out by the plaintiff, the pla...
Mr. B.R. Jindal Vs. Shri Hans Raj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)643; 107(2003)DLT239; 2003(71)DRJ102
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Rule. This writ petition is being taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties. 2.The petitioner has prayed that the impugned orders dated 8.10.1999 and 29.10.1998 which have both been passed by the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner be set aside and that the case be remanded to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Appeals) being the competent authority to hear and decide appeals under Section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the ''said Act''). 3. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether an appeal preferred under Section 22 of the said Act can be disposed of by treating it as a Revision under Section 24 of the said Act? 4.The brief facts which are not in dispute are that on 21.8.1998 the Settlement Officer passed an order under Section 19 of the said Act. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the Settlement Officer and, the...
Shri Ravinder Kumar Suri Vs. Aero Traders Private Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)653; 107(2003)DLT77; 2003(71)DRJ437
R.C. Jain, J. 1. Once again we are called upon to consider and answer the vexed question - 'Is the order striking out the defense a must where an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has not been complied with or is there a discretion in the Controller not to take the penal action of striking out the defense, if so, how such a discretion should be exercised?' 2. These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the order of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, (referred to as Tribunal ) dated 22-05-2001 by which an appeal filed by the tenant against the order of the Rent Controller dated 19-03-2001 striking off the defense of the tenant for not complying with the order of payment/deposit of rent passed under Section 15(1) of the has been allowed and the tenant has been directed to deposit the arrears of rent along with penalty equivalent to the amount of rent. In CM(M) No. 512/01 t...
Mandir Shree Sitaramji @ Shri Sitaram Bhandar and ors. Vs. Land Acquis ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)359A; 107(2003)DLT10; 2003(70)DRJ630A
ORDERCM. 10216/2003 in CW 623/1977:1. The application is rejected in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., : AIR1997SC1236 , wherein the Apex Court in para 10 has stated as under:'Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to make a few observationsrelevant to land acquisition proceedings. Our country is now launched upon anambitious programme of all-round economic advancement to make our economycompetitive in the world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct investmentto the maximum extent. We propose to compete with Chine economically. We wishto attain the pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred toas 'Asian tigers', i.e., South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognisedon all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a place of progressis woefully lacking in our country. The means of transportation, power and communications are in...
Harcharan Singh Talwar and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC134; I(2004)ACC485
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. ADMIT.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.3. This order will dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant to challenge the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. A few facts relevant for deciding the appeal are :-A consignment containing 30 cardboard boxes of fowl eggs were dispatched from Kayankulam (Kerala) to New Delhi under Parcel Way Bill (PWB) Nos. 697505 dated 16.11.1996. The consignment was not delivered in Delhi and the appellant, thereforee, filed an application under Section 16 of the Railways Act after giving notice under the relevant provisions of the Railways Act and under the Code of Civil Procedure, before the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming damages for non-delivery of the consignment. It was claimed in the application before the Tribunal that the non-delivery of the consignment was entirely due to acts of misconduct on the part of the respondents and the applicant was, thereforee, entitl...
M.C.D. Vs. Brij Bala and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)331; 108(2003)DLT696
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. 2. With the consent of both the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.3. This writ petition challenges the impugned Award dated 1st July, 1999, passed in I.D. No.167 of 1996 by the Labour Court I, Delhi by which the petitioner Management was directed to grant the pay-scale lawfully due to the respondent No.1/workman herein and fix her pay in the pay-scale of Rs.1350-2000 with effect from the date of her appointment i.e., 13th December, 1991.4. On 13th December, 1991, the respondent No.1/workman was appointed as House Keeper/Caretaker on compassionate grounds after the death of her husband. However, it is not disputed that she is qualified for the post of House Keeper/Caretaker. The only dispute involved in the present writ petition is whether the respondent No.1 was entitled to be granted the pay-scale of Rs.950-1400/- or Rs.1350-2200/- on her appointment w.e.f. 13th December, 1991 as House Keeper/Caretaker. 5. The Indus...
Vikas Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)299; 108(2003)DLT357; 2004(72)DRJ13; 2004(1)JCC43
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. These are the petitions arising out of case no. 78/2002 under Section 364/ 302 / 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Kavi Nagar Police Station, Ghaziabad, seeking transfer of the case under Section 407 Cr.P.C., pending before the Court of Sh.S.N. Dhingra, Addl. Sessions Judge to any other court of competent jurisdiction. It is pertinent to mention that earlier to these petitions, the petitioners had also moved a similar petition before this court which was dismissed with sombre advice by his Lordship Justice R.C. Chopra to the learned Additional Sessions Judge that judges trying criminal cases should neither be too vocal nor to be excited in making observations or comments which may have tendency to send wrong signals to the parties. 2. This case which was transferred from U.P. to Delhi by the orders of the Supreme Court, was assigned for trial by the District and Sessions Judge of Delhi to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sh. S.N. Dhingra.3. The earlier petition ...
Raj Rani and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT262
ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage.3. A perpetual lease was executed dated 20.4.1972 in favor of the petitioners in respect of plot No. A-874, Naraina Industrial Area Phase-I, New Delhi measuring 1941 sq. yds. for all industries allowed under the Master Plan for Delhi except acid and Chemicals, cold storages, ice factories and food products. The petitioners constructed on the said plot and was issued the occupancy certificate.4. The petitioners, received a show-cause notice dated 8.1.2002 alleging that there was unauthorised construction to the extent that a weigh bridge in front side of the open space of the premises had been installed and the same was in violation of the terms and conditions of the clauses of these lease deed being Clauses II(2), II(11) and II(12). The said clauses are as under:'II. The lessee for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns ...
Madan Mohan Gupta Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ381
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. If the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that on citing the judgment of this Court in Padmini Polymers Ltd. v. Unit Trust of India, 2003 (1) A.D. (Del) 88 : 2002 (65) DRJ 705 in support of his application for recalling the summoning order, learned ASJ remarked that since this judgment is of the High Court, it be cited before the High Court is true it is a very serious matter and verges on contempt of Court. Every court subordinate to this Court is bound by the judgments of this Court unless the judgment has been overruled by a Superior Court or is no more a good law. Court has to not only refer to the relevant judgments cited by the counsel but also deal with the same effectively. Even if it is found that the subordinate Court has tried to efface or find out a way to deliberately whittle down the ratio of the law laid down by the High Court by circumventing the facts or distinguishing the indistinguishable facts, that court is guilty of gross contempt. ...
Corning, Incorporated and ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Garg and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ649; [2004]54SCL378(Delhi)
R.C. Chopra, J.1. is No. 6059/2002 is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, praying for an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from importing, sourcing, manufacturing, distributing, supplying, offering for sale or dealing in ophthalmic glass blanks/lenses bearing 'two ribs' design which have not been sourced from the plaintiffs, and also from passing off counterfeit 'two ribs' products as those of the plaintiffs till the disposal of this suit. It is also prayed that the defendants be restrained by an ad-interim injunction from infringing the plaintiffs copyright in the industrial drawings in the manufacture of ophthalmic lenses bearing 'two ribs' design which is a three dimensional re-production. is No. 7084/2002 is an application filed by defendant No. 1 for restraining the plaintiffs from issuing any threats/communications to the dealers/business associates of the defendants till the application for stay is decided...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »