Delhi Court April 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 13 of about 169 results (0.021 seconds)Amar @ Bahadur Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT267; 2005(82)DRJ197
R.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8th October, 2004 and order dated 15th October, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby the appellant herein Amar @ Bahadur has been convicted of the offences punishable under Section 368 read with Section 366 IPC, under Section 344 IPC and under Section 506 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 368 read with Section 366 IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for the period of two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 344 IPC and also sentence of two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment have however been ordered to run concurrently, subject to benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.2. The appellant along with two women Mumtaz and Lata was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 363/366A/...
Tag this Judgment!Fedders Lloyd Corporation Ltd. and Lloyd Sales Corporation Pvt. Ltd. V ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT410; 2005(30)PTC353(Del)
Anil Kumar, J.1. The questions for determination in this appeal are whether the appellants(tm) application under Section 46 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 for removal of the trade mark of the respondent no.1 on account of non-use was within time and whether non use by respondent no.1 was on account of restriction on import, constituting special circumstances.2. The appellants have impugned the judgment of the learned Single judge under Section 109(5) of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 in the present appeal. The appellants(tm) application under section 46 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 was dismissed by order dated 19th September,1997 in CO no.10 of 1982 by a learned Single Judge holding that the application of the appellants under Section 46 of Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as `Act(tm) was barred under Section 137 of the Limitation Act,1963 and that the respondent no.1 had established his intention to use the trade mark an...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Madhubala Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT515; 2005(82)DRJ92
Rekha Sharma, J.1. The appellant though unlettered and poor seems to be enlightened enough as far as the need to plan her family is concerned. By 1995, she was already a mother to three biological children. That was the time she thought of sterilization. Goaded by this thought, she went to the Respondent hospital and on the 10th day of November of that very year, got herself operated upon for sterilization little knowing that her womb was still not ordained to become barren. On the 16th day of second month of the year 2000, she was informed that she was yet again in her family way. And exactly, six months thereafter, she became a mother again on her delivering a biological male child. She says the doctors were negligent in performing the surgery for, otherwise, how could she conceive again Based on that, she filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,50,000/- as damages besides interest thereon @ 18% p.a. The suit was against three defendants, the Government of NCT of Delhi, the Union of India...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Jagat Singh and anr., Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT283; 2005(82)DRJ327
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners are licensees of telephone booths / taxi booths near Hotel Imperial, Janpath, New Delhi. The grievances of the petitioners arise from the impugned orders passed cancelling the allotment.2. Learned counsel for both the parties agreed that the writ petition bearing WP (C) No. 4001/2000 be treated as the lead matter for the purpose of hearing since there were no material factual differences and the principles sought to be contended by the respective parties were the same. In the said writ petition, it has been stated that there was an allotment of shop made on a plot opposite Imperial Hotel where now Chandralok Building has been constructed by the respondent / NDMC. At the stage when a project of Chandralok Building was taken up, petitioner No. 1 was shifted outside the Imperial Hotel and was allotted a masonary taxi booth No. 7 at 36, Janpath, New Delhi comprising an area of 6' x 14' on a monthly license fee of Rs.75/-. The said masonary structure...
Tag this Judgment!Gulmarg Restaurant Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(1)CTLJ462(Del); 119(2005)DLT648; 2005(82)DRJ128
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A public auction was held by the respondent DDA for shops in CSE, Basant Enclave Market, under self-financing group housing scheme on 25.07.1983. The appellant was the highest bidder for a restaurant-cum-shop on the top floor having bid for an amount of Rs. 6,67,000/-. The appellant deposited 25% of the bid amount being the earnest money on the fall of the hammer amounting to Rs. 1,66,750/-.2. The aforesaid bid was subject to acceptance by the Vice Chairman, DDA being the competent authority and on such bid being accepted and the acceptance being communicated the balance amount had to be deposited within 30 days of such communication. In case of non-acceptance of the bid, earnest money to be refunded to the bidder without any interest. There is no dispute over these terms.3. The appellant claims to have received no communication and it is only some time in January 1984 found out that the bid had not been accepted. There is some dispute on this aspect since acco...
Tag this Judgment!Kanwal Kishore Manchanda and anr. Vs. S.D. Technical Services Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT98; 2005(81)DRJ715
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Present order disposes of is No. 956/2004 filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant invoking provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also is No. 4174/2004 filed by the defendant invoking provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Since survival of the suit in this court would be a condition precedent for deciding under Order 12 Rule 6, it would be advisable to first dispose of defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. As per is No. 4174/2004, it is stated by the defendant that the suit merits rejection for the reasons:-6. That it is borne out from a plain perusal of the averments in the plaint that the Plaintiffs are seeking both the above mentioned reliefs i.e. recovery of Rs.20,00,500/- and mandatory injunction directing commanding and requiring the Defendant to discharge all claims and demands of Delhi Vidyut Board and its successor BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. in respect of el...
Tag this Judgment!Willard India Ltd. and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT685
Manju Goel, J.1. This revision petition calls for examination of the question of limitation for taking cognizance in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The impugned order dated 29.11.2002 considered the plea of limitation raised by the petitioners who were the accused in the complaint case and held that the complaint was filed within limitation and, thereforee, cognizance could be taken even after the expiry of one year from the date on which the cause of action arose. The facts leading to the present revision petition are as under.2. The complaint was presented before the trial court on 5.12.1996 when the Magistrate passed the following order.'Fresh complaint received. It be checked and registered.Present : Complainant in person with counsel.Heard. Put up for CE on 9.5.97.'3. No order showing that cognizance was taken was passed on that date. Nor was any order summoning the petitioners was made. It was only on 13....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lakhanpal National Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT486TriDel
2. Applicant filed this application for recalling of the ex parte order dated 28-12-2004. The contention of the applicant is that they had asked for adjournment on the ground that the Cross Objection was not listed along with the appeal which were duly filed vide Application No.C.O./274/04-NB(A). We find that Cross Objection filed by the applicants was not listed along with the appeal filed by the Revenue and ex parte order was passed. In these circumstances we find merit in the submission of the appellant. Therefore, Final Order No. 28-12-2004 is recalled and appeals are listed for hearing on 22nd June 2005. Registry is directed to list the Cross Objection application No. 274/04-NB(A) along with appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Har Singar Gutkha Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT369TriDel
1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common order-in-original vide which the duty and penalties have been confirmed against the appellants as detailed therein by the adjudicating authority.2. The appellant No. 1, the company, which was engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala during the period in dispute i.e. 2/1998 to 6/1998, while the appellant No. 2 was its Managing Director and the appellant No. 3 was accountant during that period. The duty has been confirmed against the company on the ground that on 6-1-1998 shortages of some raw material i.e. Supari, Katha, Cardamom, Tobacco & Rolls was found by the Officers after carrying out the physical verification of the stock. The penalties have been imposed on the other two appellants who allegedly helped the company in the clandestine manufacture and removal of the final product i.e. Pan Masala.3. We have heard both sides and gone through the record. From the record, we find that shortages of rolls found was ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. B.S. Engineering Works Co.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT503
1. A batch of petitions was filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for appointment of Arbitrator and for reference of disputes to the Arbitrator. Appellants raised two fold objections to these petitions: -i) That most of the claims fell within the 'excepted matters' under the agreement andii) That the claim for interest could also not form subject matter of reference.2. Learned Single Judge disposed of these petitions by a common order dated 6th November, 2000 overruling the objections of Appellants and holding that the new Arbitration Act would be applicable in the matter. The learned Judge held: -'Agreement between the parties moreover provides that the arbitration between the parties will be covered by the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and any statutory modifications thereof shall apply to the arbitration proceedings. Since after the filing of these petitions, Arbitration Act 1940 has been repealed and Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been enacted. Since the pa...
Tag this Judgment!