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.
WIn Medicare Private Limited Vs. Uni-pex Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT398
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed jointly by the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of registered trademark, copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts, delivery up and damages. During the pendency of the present suit, the plaintiff and the defendant have arrived at a settlement which has been reduced to writing in the form of this application. The terms and conditions of the settlement are set out in detail in the application.2. Broadly speaking, the defendant has acknowledged the plaintiff to be the proprietor of the trademark 'BETADINE' and 'ECZO-BETADINE' as set out in paragraph 3 of the plaint. The defendant has also acknowledged the plaintiff to be the owner of the copyright in the product packaging of the plaintiff's BETADINE Ointment packaging under Copyright Registration No. A-53290/96 as descri...
Sudhir Chandra JaIn Vs. State of Haryana and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT520
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Briefly stated, the annal of this litigation is that a Suit for Possession and Damages had been filed by the Respondent No. 1 in the Civil Court. It appears that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PP Act') had been made applicable to these premises in 1997. The contention of learned counsel for the Respondent is that for this reason the Suit for Possession and Damages had been withdrawn. It is contended that leave to agitate the question of damages had been left open. To ascertain whether leave was reserved, I have perused the Order whereby that Civil Suit was permitted to be withdrawn on 5.8.1999 which reads as follows:-In the present suit an application had been moved on behalf of the plaintiff Under Section 151 CPC on 15.3.99 for withdrawal of the suit. In the present application it has been stated that the plaintiff do not want to pursue the suit and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn.Proxy Cl...
G.D. Green Flore Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kuhn-rikon Asia Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT388; 2006(87)DRJ212
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') by the plaintiff for adding Spring Switzerland as a defendant in the present suit.2. This suit has a chequered history in the sense that initially the plaintiff had instituted the suit, inter alia, for injunction. It transpires that the Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 application filed by the plaintiff was rejected by this Court and thereafter the plaintiff modified the suit to its present form being a suit for recovery of Rs. 50 lacs as damages for wrongful termination of the agency agreement. 3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that the letter of appointment which was issued to the plaintiff on 31.10.1997 was undoubtedly issued by the present defendant in favor of the plaintiff appointing the plaintiff as an agent. However, it was signed on behalf of Spring Switzerland which is the proposed party to be added as a defendant in th...
Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Medipharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT634
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J 1. This is a suit, inter alia, for permanent injunction restraining infringement of Trade Mark, Copyright, Passing Off, and Rendition of Accounts/Damages, Delivery Up.2. The defendant had been directed to be proceeded with ex parte by virtue of an order dated 25.2.2004 Thereafter, the plaintiff led its ex parte evidence in the form of an affidavit of one Mr C. Napoleon, who is the Company Secretary of the plaintiff company. Along with the evidence affidavit of Mr C. Napoleon, the power of attorney executed in his favor, being Ext.P-1 has been filed. In the affidavit it is stated that one Mr Rex Coutinho was the company secretary of the plaintiff company and he had the authority to sign and verify the same at that point of time. It is also stated in the affidavit that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 20, Dr. E. Moses Road, Mumbai-400001.3. It is stated in evidence in support of the pleadings that ...
Super Seals India Limited Vs. Sos Automotive Components (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Delhi203; 2006(1)ARBLR218(Delhi); 129(2006)DLT23; 2006(87)DRJ268
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This is in application filed by the defendant under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'The Act') on the ground that there is an arbitration clause contained in the Deed of Family Settlement (hereinafter referred to as the 'Deed of Settlement') as per which, the matter needs to be referred to arbitration. The relevant clause is clause 6.11 in the said Deed of Settlement which reads as under:-6.11 All disputes or differences arising between the parties hereto in respect of, relating to, concerning or otherwise arising out of this settlement shall be settled by the arbitration of the said UNM and VD. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted at New Delhi and shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitrator (s) shall give an Award in writing on each reference and their decision shall be final and binding upon the parties. Any dispute or difference between UNM and VD shall be settled by GCB who shall be the...
Unique Interprises Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR281(Delhi); 127(2006)DLT401; 2006(87)DRJ220
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This application has been moved under Section 151 of the CPC for withdrawal of the amount deposited in this Court pursuant to an award which has been made a rule of the Court by virtue of the order dated 27.01.2003. It is admitted by the parties that as on 19.1.2006 the amount of the decree along with interest at 10% w.e.f 20.8.1983 to 19.01.2006 comes to Rs.2,73,185.40 which can be rounded of to Rs.2,73,185/-. The learned counsel for the judgment debtor states that an amount of Rs.2,87,791/- was deposited in this Court by the judgment debtor. That amount has been placed in a fixed deposit and interest has accrued thereon.2. The learned counsel for the judgment debtor has raised two issues. The first issue being that any amount that is payable under the award and decree would be liable to deduction of tax at source under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because it would be a payment to the contractor. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the jud...
Asha Arora Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT321
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 26th April, 20042. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same, except where necessary.4. The appellant was appointed in Manav Sthali School, Senior School, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi with effect from 17th July, 1984. She alleged that her daughter met with an accident on 16th October, 2000 and she applied for leave which was admittedly not granted. She received a letter dated 13th December, 2000 from the School calling upon her to join duties within two days, failing which, the School would make alternative arrangement. The petitioner/appellant applied for extension of leave till 31st March, 2001. It is alleged that on 14th December, 2000, she went to the School where she met the Principal. On 20th January, 2001, ...
Shri Pankaj Narang Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT670; 2006(87)DRJ446
ORDERJ.P. Singh, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 25.6.2005 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi summoning the petitioner under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.2. I have heard Mr. Hari Narayan Takkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the point of admission, and have gone through the documents placed on the file.3. A perusal of the complaint shows that in para 2 and para 6 of the complaint it is averred that respondent No. 2 is a company under the Companies Act and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are Directors of the respondent No. 1 company and are looking after and managing the affairs of respondent No. 1 company and as such are responsible for the day to day affairs of the company and are also squarely liable in the present dispute. The respondents are jointly and severally liable and they refused to clear their liabilities. The complainant company has been supplying wood to the respondents fro...
Rajiv Poddar Vs. Canara Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: III(2006)BC1; 2006(87)DRJ204
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 15th June, 2005 passed by respondent No. 4, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I , Delhi in M.A. No. 53/2005 in O.A. No. 409/1996 (Canara Bank v. Sagar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.) and to delete the name of the petitioner from the recovery certificate.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.3. The respondent No. 1, Canara Bank, filed original Suit No.27/1987 in the Delhi High Court for recovery of Rs.12,35,250.95 against respondents No. 2 and 3 and one Shri G.D. Poddar, who died during the pendency of the suit on 8th August, 1992. Copy of the plaint is Annexure `P' to the writ petition.4. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition that the said suit was compromised by respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Shri G.D. Poddar had died before the compromise was effective. An application for recording the compromise was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal on behalf of...
inder Singh Vs. D.T.C.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT514
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. Issue Rule. With consent of learned counsel for parties, the matter is heard finally.2. The petitioner, an employee of the respondent DTC, was working with it since 1963. On certain allegations of having been party to a strike, his services were terminated on 18.3.1988.3. It is alleged that the DTC, later was of the view that the order of termination required re-consideration. Accordingly, on 20th October, 1989 the petitioner was reinstated to the services. The order inter alias stated as follows: He will not be entitled to draw any compensation or salary or allowance or any financial benefit for the intervening period from his dismissal to re- appointment. He will have to promise that he will not file any such claim from management court or Agency.The intervening period from the date of his dismissal to re-appointment shall be deemed as dice-non and this period will be taken in account for the purpose of calculating leave, bonus, increment, Provident Fund, Grat...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »