Delhi Court May 2007 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.
Satnam Overseas Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: LC2007(2)309; 2007(35)PTC22(Del)
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. These appeals are directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 11th September, 2003 whereby the learned Single Judge partly allowed the petitions registered as CM (Main) No. 303/93 and CM (Main) No. 313/96 and has dismissed CM (M) No. 327/93. 2. Respondent No. 1, Sant Ram & Company obtained registration of the trademark KOHINOOR under trademark registration No. 274996 in respect of rice in class 30 on September 15, 19713. The appellant M/s Satnam Overseas claims that they adopted the trade mark KOHINOOR in respect of rice in July 1979. In July 1985, they applied for registration of the trade mark KOHINOOR vide application No. 372700 in respect of rice included in class 30 for sales in India. The said trade mark was advertised in Trade Mark Journal in 1985. Another application was filed by the appellant for registration of the trade mark KOHINOOR in respect of rice for export included in class 30 on 3rd July, 1985. The said trade mark was pu...
Master Saurabh Kumar Vs. Naresh Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1494
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On 9.1.2003, injured Master Saurabh sustained serious injuries in a road accident stated to be caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle belonging to the respondent No. 2, Dharam Vir and respondent No. 3, Jogender Singh. Injured filed a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Vide award dated 16.8.2005, Tribunal has awarded compensation in sum of Rs. 3,18,000/- to the injured. Break up of the compensation awarded is as follows:1. Loss of earning capacity : Rs. 1,80,000/- 2. Treatment expenses : Rs. 8,000/- 3. Conveyance expenses : Rs. 5,000/- 4. Special diet : Rs. 5,000/- 5. Loss of education : Rs. 10,000/- 6. Pain and suffering : Rs. 30,000/- 7. Loss of future enjoyment of life : Rs. 70,000/- 8. Loss of earning of father : Rs. 10,000/-3. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, injured has filed the present appeal.4. Since the only issue involved relates to quantu...
Sri Chand and ors. Vs. Satyavati Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR412(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act whereby the appellants have challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 6th November, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the applications filed by the appellants praying for their transposition as petitioners.2. Certain disputes and differences arose between the parties arising out of and relating to the business of Karmayogi Group of companies and the same were referred to the sole arbitration of Mr. Sandeep Tandon, the learned Arbitrator appointed by the parties. The learned Arbitrator after receiving evidence and hearing the parties, passed his award on 19th August, 2000.3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award passed by the learned Arbitrator, some of the parties filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which was registered as OMP No. 276/2000. The appellants herein were respondent Nos. 1,8,9,12 and 53, res...
Goyal Mg Gases Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Air Liquid Deutchland Gambh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT426; 2007(96)DRJ275
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. M/s. Goyal M.G. Gases Pvt. Ltd has filed the present appeal under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act against the Order dated 19th October, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing it's application under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India praying for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents. The appellant had made 20 different parties as respondents to the said application. M/s. Air Liquid Deutchland GMbH was respondent No. 1.2. The appellant had entered into a share, purchase and cooperation Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement, for short) dated 12th May, 1995 with the respondent No. 1. Under the said agreement, the Goyal Group of companies was to hold 51% shares in the appellant company with the respondent No. 1 having 49% shareholding. The said Agreement also had a non-competition Clause which provided that the respondent No. 1 will give written inform...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satish Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2259; 2007(96)DRJ257
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act 1988 is directed against the award dated 9.2.2005.2. On 30.11.2003, injured Satish Kumar, sustained serious injuries in a road accident stated to be caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle belonging to the respondent No. 3, Nand Kishore.3. Vide award dated 9.2.2005, Tribunal has directed the appellant insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 10,34,850/- to the injured. Break up of the compensation awarded is as follows:(i) Medical reimbursement : Rs. 25,000/-(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs. 1,00,000/-(iii) Permanent disability/loss of amenities : Rs. 2,00,000/-(iv) Loss of earning capacity : Rs. 6,76,350/-(v) Conveyance/attendant charges : Rs. 7,500/-(vi) Future treatment/artificial implant : Rs. 1,000/-(vii) Loss of marriage prospects : Rs. 25,000/-.................................................................Total : Rs. 10,34,850/-...........................................................
Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. and ors. Vs. Rpg Netcom and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Delhi226; 140(2007)DLT758; 2007(34)PTC668(Del)
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. These appeals involve a common question of law and arise out of a common impugned Order dated 30th January, 2006 passed in eight different suits. As the facts and issues involved in these Appeals are similar, they are being disposed of by this common Order.2. The appellants herein are plaintiffs who have filed eight suits seeking permanent injunction against the defendant in each suit. Each defendant is providing cable television services through their associate or affiliated companies, agents, franchises or distributors.3. The appellants-plaintiffs in the plaint have alleged violation of the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Actor short) by the defendant/ respondent. It is alleged that the appellants-plaintiffs are the owners of copyright in respect of the cinematographic films either as film producers or as assignees and their right as owners of copyright in cinematographic films is being violated by the respondent-defendant who...
Capricorn One and anr. Vs. Raghbir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ306
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present appeals arise out of different orders passed in Civil Suit No. 2280/1991 titled Capricon One and Anr. v. Raghbir Singh and Ors.2. FAO(OS) No. 276/1995 has been filed by M/s. Capricorn One and Mr. I.S. Bawa against order dated 16th October, 1995 disposing of injunction application is No. 8803/1991 and Anr. similar application being is No. 8561/1995. By the said order, learned Single Judge partially allowed the injunction application, inter alia, holding that the defendant Mr. Raghbir Singh who is the respondent No. 1 in appeal No. 276/1995 should be restrained from selling the property comprised in khasra No. 207 as per the description given in the plaint. In view of the stand taken by Major Bhajan Pratap Singh and Ms. Usha Pratap Singh, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in this appeal, who were also imp leaded as parties to the suit by the same order dated 16th October, 1995, learned Single Judge held that the said defendants claim their right in respect of pr...
Mauria Udyog Ltd. Vs. Corporation Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Delhi259; 2008(1)CTLJ245(Del); 2007(96)DRJ315
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. By way of present appeal, M/s. Mauria Udyog Limited has challenged and questioned order dated 11th April, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the applications-IA Nos. 388/2005 and 564/2005 for an ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, and is No. 879/2005 under Order XXXX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short) for appointment of a Receiver.2. Facts in brief relevant for deciding the present appeal may be noticed. The appellant had entered into a contract with M/s. Lusamtex Maquinas Texteis, LDA Portugal for purchasing equipment and ancillary items mentioned in sale contract No. 245/ 2004 dated 21st April, 2004 for total sale consideration of EURO 2,20,000. Out of the said amount, EURO 22,000 was paid in advance and the remaining balance of EURO 1,98,000 was secured by an irrevocable letter of credit issued by Corporation Bank, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. This letter of credit w...
Shri Tejpal Singh Bhatia and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ301
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present appeals by Mr. Tejpal Singh Bhatia, Mrs. Harinder Kaur Bhatia and Malsh Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. is directed against the Order dated 12th September, 2005 dismissing the application filed by the appellants under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short) along with an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code.2. The appellants herein have filed the Suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondent-DDA, Union of India and the Lt. Governor, Delhi their agents and servants from interfering with peaceful possession of agricultural land measuring in total 19 bighas and 19 bids was situated in revenue estate of Mehrauli, New Delhi. The details of the land has been mentioned in the plaint.3. Learned Counsel for the appellants had submitted that the respondents are wrongly claiming that the land, subject matter of the Suit stands acquired by the Government of India, Government ...
Ms. Sumitra Devi and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ617
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. The issue that arises for consideration is:Whether a document purporting to be an unprivileged 'Will' attested by only one witness can be probated by the Court.2. At the very outset, it would be pertinent to note the relevant statutory provisions in this regard.3. Section 2(h) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (the Act) gives the definition of a 'Will'. It reads as under:2(h) 'Will' means the legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death.4. Section 63 of the Act, so far as it is relevant, reads as follows:63. Execution of unprivileged wills. - Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules:(a) ...(b) ...(c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »