Delhi Court July 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.
Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 147(2008)DLT104; 2007(35)PTC616(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The petitioner, Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal, is the proprietor of Aggarwal Sweets India, a shop selling sweets and namkeens at 24, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The respondent No. 2 is the Aggarwal Sweet Corner at 3/33, Double Story, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi which is the trading concern of Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and Shri Vinod Kumar Aggarwal. The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board by its order dated 09.09.2004. The effect of the dismissal of the appeal is that the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar, rejecting the opposition filed by the petitioner to the registration of the trademarks AGGARWAL and AGGARWAL SWEET CORNER under application Nos. 453308B and 453309 were confirmed. Consequently, the respondent No. 2 was entitled to the registration of the marks AGGARWAL and AGGARWAL SWEET CORNER. Of course, the latter trademark contained a disclaimer to the effect that it shall give no right to the e...
Mrs. Usha Saini Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 142(2007)DLT397
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the result of the DPC held on 17.2.2006 whereby the petitioner was declared not suitable for the post of Principal. The petitioner has also sought a direction to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Principal and to pay to petitioner the pay and allowances with all other benefits with effect from 01.04.2004 The petitioner has also sought a direction to stay the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.04.2006. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by counsel appearing for the parties, it would be appropriate to give narration of facts in brief.2. In 1989, the petitioner joined respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as TGT teacher and in July 1995, the petitioner became Vice Principal of the School. In November 2003, the post of Principal fell vacant and the respondent/school had advertised the said post in newspaper but later on they took a decision to hold DPC to select the Pri...
Rajesh Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT493
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This batch of writ petitions challenges the legality of the acquisition of land contiguous to the existing colony called Rohini, the largest residential colony in Delhi, if not India and Asia. Phases I to IV- of Rohini have already been completed. The assailed acquisition was initiated by the publication of a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) bearing No.F.11(19)/2001/LandB/LA/20112 dated 21.3.2003. A scanned copy of the Delhi Gazette: Extraordinary reads thus:2. We have scanned the Gazette for the reason that learned Counsel for the Petitioners have vehemently contended that the rectangle by means of which the land which is the subject matter of the acquisition has been depicted is misleading. It will be relevant to record that if the actual map is perused, the rectangle would be longer from North to South than West to East. One of the questions that arises is whether this erroneous depiction is s...
Mr. Nadir Shah, Vs. Mrs. Shashi Rajan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 146(2008)DLT75; 2007(97)DRJ235
J.M. Malik, J.1. Vide order dated 17th September, 1998, the trial court dismissed the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for impleadment of legal heirs of the plaintiff and other applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Order 22 Rule 4(5) and Section 151 CPC for condensation of delay in filing the above-said application and under Order I Rule 10 CPC moved by applicant Nadir Shah. Adumbrated in brief, the facts of the case are these. Secunder Shah expired on 7th February, 1994, leaving behind him, his wife, Gulshan Ara Begum, three daughters, Shamshad Sultana, Munwar Sultana and Tajbar Sultana and one son, Nadir Shah. According to the plaintiffs/applicants, the right to sue survived in their favor and thereforee, they moved the above-said applications on April, 1996. There was a delay of 739 days in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 3.2. The appellants have explained the delay as follows. Secunder Shah purchased the suit property for the benefit of his fa...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Prakash Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: [2008]306ITR324(Delhi)
V.B. Gupta, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 22nd December, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal') 'C' Bench, Kolkata in IT (SS) No. 126/Del/2003 for Block Assessment period 1st April, 1989 to 29th July, 1999.2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessed against the order dated 21st February, 2003 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi confirming the various additions amounting to Rs. 1,00,61,680/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of entries recorded in Annexure A-1 to A-5 of the panchnama.3. The brief facts are that a search was conducted at premises No. A-2/5, 1st Floor, Model Town, Delhi on 29th July, 1999 where the assessed is also residing along with his father. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 158BC to the assessed for filing of the Block return. The assessed objected to the notice stating the the search warrant was in the name of his father Shri. Ram...
Shyam J. Malkani and Ors. Vs. Air India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 142(2007)DLT1
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this common order the writ petition bearing Nos. 4998- 07/2005 4998- 07/2005 and 11058-74/2005 are being disposed of. Petitioners who have been working as Assistant Managers with the respondents feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 08.11.2004 issued by the respondents have moved the present writ petition seeking quashing of the Promotion Policy of the respondents dated 15.06.1988 and the order dated 06.07.2004 vide which the percentage promotability from the grade of Assistant Managers to Deputy Managers was brought down from 90% to 30% and for quashing of all the promotions of the persons junior to the petitioners with further directions to promote the petitioners to the grade of Deputy Managers with all consequential benefits. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition in brief are that the petitioners have been working on the post of Assistant Managers for the last more than 25 years. The petitioners have claimed that...
Star India P. Ltd. Vs. the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 146(2008)DLT455
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In Petition No. I (CW 24105/2005) Star India Pvt. Ltd. has prayed for a certiorari quashing the proviso to Section 2(1)(k) of the TRAI Act; a certiorari for quashing Tariff Orders dated 15.1.2004, 1.10.2004, 1.12.2004 and 29.11.2005 and the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation, 2004 It has further been prayed that the Court should declare that TRAI is not competent to regulate broadcasting services as also another declaration to the effect that these impugned Orders and impugned Interconnect Regulations are vocative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) and (g) as also Articles 301 to 307 of the Constitution. In Petition No. II (CW 5332/2006) Star India Private Limited has prayed for the setting aside an order of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 12(C) of 2005 titled Grahak Hitvardhani Sarvajanik Sanstha v. TRAI and (b) issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the Telecommunication (Broadcasting an...
GulamuddIn Vs. State (Gnct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ589
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. By this common judgment we are going to dispose of five appeals arising out of the judgment dated 19.5.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 58/2005 arising out of FIR No. 31/99 registered at Bara Hindu Rao Police Station whereby all the five appellants were convicted under Section 396 read with Section 34 IPC and also under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.2. The appellants/accused were prosecuted for having committed dacoity in House No.T-20, Kishan Ganj, Double Phatak, DCM Road, Delhi on 2.2.99 at about 7.00 p.m. and also for having killed one Smt.Rekha Sharma while committing the dacoity in her house. The complainant of this case is PW-10 Ashwani Sharma @ Lovely. He is the son of deceased Rekha Sharma. His statement (Ex. PW-10/A) was recorded by PW-18 Sub Inspector Tara Chand and on that basis FIR of this case (Ex. PW-1/B) was registered. It was stated by Ashwani Sharma in his statement to the Police that on 2.2.99 at...
Ashok Malik Vs. Ramesh Malik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 150(2008)DLT693
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC') filed on behalf of the defendant requesting this court to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by limitation.2. The suit has been filed for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to sell entered into between the defendant as the owner and the plaintiff as the intending purchaser of the property bearing No. C-10, Chirag Enclave, New Delhi-110 048. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the plaintiff came in occupation of the property being an employee of a company known as 'Modi Rubber Limited'. The said company was the tenant of the defendant. The plaintiff claims to have occupied the premises sometime in May, 1980. It is alleged that in October 1986, an oral agreement to sell was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant whereby the defendant agreed to sell 50...
Shri Anil Prakash Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Its Commi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT614
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. Aggrieved with the order dated 5.1.2007, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking directions for setting aside of his reversion from the post of Director-in-Chief (Sanitation) to the post of Chief Engineer, Slum and JJ Department of the respondent. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the respective counsels appearing for the parties, it would be appropriate to set out the brief facts for proper appreciation of the controversy involved in the present case. The facts as stated in the petition inter-alia are that petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the year 1982 against direct quota through a process of selection against a regular post. On the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission, the petitioner was given officiating promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 1.9.94, on which post he was subsequently confirmed. Vide letter dated 1.5.96, the petitioner was assigned...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »