Delhi Court January 2006 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.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. All India Bharat Sanchar Nigam Executive ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(87)DRJ401
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction on the premise that it is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff has been providing public utility services in the form of telephone/mobile services to the public of the country. The office of the Chief General Manager is responsible for maintenance work of telecom in the States of U.P., Uttranchal, Rajasthan, J&K;, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and administration of various staff in different categories in the Northern Telecom Circle. The plaintiff came into existence on 1.10.2000 and nearly 3.5 lakhs employees working in the erstwhile Deptt. of Telecom Services and Deptt. of Telecom Operations were transferred on deemed deputation to the company. It is the case of the plaintiff that the members of the defendant association are its employees and are entitled to the benefits strictly in adherence to the DPE Guidelines as mentioned in the let...
Cosmo Ferrites Limited Vs. Universal Commercial Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Delhi320; 128(2006)DLT36; 2006(86)DRJ775; (2006)143PLR5
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking the relief that the suit be decreed along with interest as prayed for in the plaint in terms of alleged admissions made by the defendants in their written statement/counter claim filed by them.2. The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 36,73,922.23 against the defendants, inter alia, on the ground that the defendant No. 1 and its partners, defendant Nos 2 and 3, approached the plaintiff and offered to sell Soft Ferrites which were being manufactured by the plaintiff. It is the plaintiff's case that the plaintiff and the defendants had a principle-to-principle relationship inasmuch as the defendants and, in particular, defendant No. 1 was the stockist for the plaintiff for the Delhi area. The plaintiff's allegation is that the goods were supplied in terms of their past practice on a principle-to-principle basis a...
Yahoo! Inc. Vs. Sanjay V. Shah and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 128(2006)DLT488; 2006(32)PTC263(Del)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The plaintiff is stated to be a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA with its office at California, USA. Ms. Sunita K. Sreedharan is the constituted attorney of the plaintiff and is duly authorized by and under a power of attorney to sign and verify the pleadings and to institute the present suit. The present plaint has been signed and verified by the said Ms. Sunita K. Sreedharan. The plaintiff is a global internet media company that offers a branded network of comprehensive information, communication and shopping services to millions of users under its unique and highly distinctive trademark 'YAHOO!' since June, 1994. It is the case of the plaintiff that the services provided by the plaintiff enables internet users, even non-technical ones, to find information relevant for their purposes out of the plethora of contents of the world wide web. The plaintiff was amongst the first in the field to start a web directory and p...
Continental Construction Ltd. and anr. Vs. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR321(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The court question urged on both sides only leads to one aspect, does the present case fall in any of the exceptions to the general rule of non-granting of ad-interim injunction restraining encashment of bank guarantees. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted while relying upon other judgments as well as recent judgment of this court in Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. OMP No. 213/2005 decided on November 24, 2005 that the present case is squarely covered and undoubtedly falls in the specified exceptions and petitioners are entitled to injunction against the respondents. However, the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the judgment of the Court in M/s. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. (supra) is of no avail to the petitioners in as much as its correctness and elucidation of law can be questioned on the following reasons:-(a) On facts, the judgment of the Court in Hindustan Construction Compa...
Kewal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT676; 2006(86)DRJ747
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB has already been issued on 6th August, 2002. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition challenges the impugned order of dismissal dated 13th January, 1999 passed by the Commandant, 83 Battalion, Jammu (J & K) pursuant to an enquiry report against the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner is as follows:-That the said No. 710552691 HC/GD Kewal Singh of B Coy, 83 Bn, CRPF while functioning as Platoon Havildar and Guard Commander of LMG Morcha No. 1 committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that on 04-09-98 at about 1930 hrs, he resorted to firing with AK Rifle issued to him for duties apprehending threat from No. 830430144 L/Nk(GD) Rajender Singh of B/83 Bn, CRPF and fired one round. Another round from his AK Rifle also fired while he was being controlled by No. 730380119 HC/GD Sita Singh Yadav in an effort t...
Jasubhai Digital Media Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Vogel Media Internationa ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 128(2006)DLT413; 2006(90)DRJ449
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. On 27.10.2005 when this application came up for the first time, this Court had issued notice to show cause as to why notice on the contempt petition should not be issued. Notice was accepted on behalf of the alleged contemnors and it was directed that reply could be filed within three weeks. However, today Mr. Sudhir Chandra, the learned senior counsel appears on behalf of the alleged contemnors and states that at this stage when the question of issuance of notice in the contempt petition itself is to be decided, no reply would be necessary and he is ready and willing to argue the case as it is. Accordingly, the parties were heard on the question of whether any notice on the contempt petition could be issued at all or not. 2. Mr. Amerjit Singh, who appears on behalf of the defendants submitted that the plaintiffs have been guilty of contumacious conduct amounting to willful defiance of orders passed by this Court. He, thereforee, contended that the plaintiffs ...
Maharaji Educational Trust and anr. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Delhi226; II(2006)BC473; 127(2006)DLT161; 2006(87)DRJ410
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit praying for passing of a decree of declaration against the defendants declaring that the communication dated 22nd August, 2005 is illegal, void, malafide and is vitiated by falsehood and fraud. Plaintiffs had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') being is No. 7513/2005. On 22nd September, 2005 the court passed the following order:-22.09.2005Present: Mr. Madan Bhatia, Sr. Adv. with Mr. N. Pandey and Mr. A.P.Sinha for the plaintiffIA 7514/2005 in CS(OS) 1339/2005 Exemption prayed for allowed subject to just exceptions. The proper documents shall be filed within two months from today. is stands disposed of.CS(OS) 1339/2005 Issue summons by Registered AD, in the ordinary manner and dusty as well, returnable on 3.10.2005.IA 7513/2005 Issue notice, returnable on 3.10.2005. In the meanwhile the defendants are restrained from taking any cohes...
Smt. Sonu JaIn Vs. Sh. Rohit Garg and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 128(2006)DLT633; 2006(87)DRJ489
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition of properties and rendition of accounts as stated in paragraph 5 of the plaint against the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the daughter of Shri Ram Kishan Garg (deceased), while defendant No. 1 is the son, defendant No. 2 is the widow and defendant No. 3 is the daughter of the deceased. He died intestate on18.9.1988 at Delhi leaving behind the movable and immovable properties as stated in paragraph 5 of the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is entitled to one-fourth share in all the properties and thus, is also entitled to that share in the income from the said properties for all the years as the defendants have to come forward and divide the properties equally among all the heirs of the deceased father of the plaintiff. She had even written letters to them on 06.01.2005 and 18.01.2005 but of no consequence. The conduct of the defendants compelled her to file the present suit for p...
Ashok Yatri Niwas Now Indraprastha Hotels Vs. Uoi (Union of India) and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT374; 2006(86)DRJ758; [2006(109)FLR406]; (2006)IILLJ1132Del
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Admit. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. This appeal challenges the order dated 20th April, 2004 dismissing the civil writ petition No. 2062/89 filed by the successors entitled 'M/s Indraprastha Hotel'- a unit of Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd., who had taken over the property, right and powers of M/s India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.(in short the `ITDC') in Hotel Ashok Yatri Niwas, now known as 'Hotel Indraprastha'- which was then a unit of ITDC by the Scheme of Arrangement dated 8th October, 2002. The learned Single Judge has followed the judgment in a companion Writ Petition No. 1881/1982 entitled 'Hotel Jaipur Ashok and Anr. v. Ms. KP Sarojni and Ors., raising issues similar to those raised in the present writ petition No. 2062/1989 The dues in the present case relates to the dues of provident fund sought to be recovered by the respondent No. 2, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi(in short...
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. People Infocom Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(34)PTC273(Del)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. By this order, I would dispose of is 7119/2005 filed in the present suit under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of the Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Defendant No. 2 is the producer of the picture titled as 'Aashiq Banaya Aaapne' and as such was the owner of the copyright in various works including literary, dramatic and musical works of the picture. Defendant No. 2 entered into an assignment deed dated 24th June, 2005 with the plaintiff and agreed to assign the literary, dramatic and musical works of the picture including sound recording to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff as per the terms of the agreement and particularly in terms of clause 2(a), defendant No. 2 had completely assigned to the plaintiff the right to reproduce the work in any material form including storing of the same by any electronic means. The rights assigned to the plaintiff also incl...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »