Delhi Court November 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 9 of about 102 results (0.024 seconds)Pernod Ricard S.A. France and anr. Vs. Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: LC2009(1)112; 2009(39)PTC367(Del)
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. The present action has been filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining infringement of its registered trademark, copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts of profit/damages, delivery up, dilution, unfair competition, etc. against the defendants.FACTS2. The material facts are not in dispute. The plaintiffs are a part of the 'Groupe Pernod Ricard', a group of companies held by Pernord Ricard S.A., the plaintiff No. 1 herein. The plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are the ultimate subsidiaries of the plaintiff No. 1. The 'Groupe Pernod Ricard' features as one of the two leading players of the world in the spirits and wine market having presence in many countries of the world. Its products are sold under various internationally renowned and acclaimed brands such as ROYAL SALUTE, CHIVAS REGAL, 100 PIPERS, BALLANTINES, BEEFEATER, CLAN CAMPBELL, SOMETHING SPECIAL, THE GLENLIVET, MALIBU, KALHUA, WILD TURKEY, JAMESON, PERNOD, RICARD, JACOB'S...
Tag this Judgment!State (Govt. of Nct) of Delhi Vs. Shashi Shekhar @ Neeraj @ Raju
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT678
Anil Kumar, J.Crl. M.A. No. 14540/2007 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of. Crl. M.A. No. 14539/2007 and Crl. A. No. 831/20071. This is an application by the appellant/applicant, in the above noted appeal, seeking condonation of delay of 2001 days in filing the appeal in the interest of justice.2. By judgment dated 27th February, 2002, the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, had sentenced the respondent/accused to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one day under Section 302 of IPC and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years under Section 392/397 of Indian Penal Code and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 538 of 1995 under Section 302/392/411 registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj.3. While sentencing the respondent to undergo life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment of ten years and three years,...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Reeta Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2009ACJ1229
V.B. Gupta, J.1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the appellant in this case, has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as the Act') challenging the award dated 10.9.2007 passed by Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Judge, M.A.C.T., Delhi (for short as the Tribunal').2. The facts of the present case in brief are that on 13.6.2006 at about 4.15 p.m., deceased Dinesh along with his wife Reeta Devi was going to Vaishno Mata Mandir, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. At the time of crossing the road, i.e., Kali Dass Marg, Vaishno Mata Mandir, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi, a speeding TSR No. DL 1R-E 4701 came from the side of Chowki No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased Dinesh resulting in injuries. Deceased was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi but during the daytime he expired.3. The vehicle was being driven by Subhash Chander, respondent No. 3, who is also the owner of the offending vehicle. Later on respondent No. 3 did not appear and vide order dated 14.5.2007...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Span Foundation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]178TAXMAN436(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common order dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. Common issues have been raised in respect of both the years. The assessee is a charitable trust. It purchased certain land. Thereafter, it constructed a building out of borrowed funds as well as out of the corpus. The building was rented out. According to the revenue since the building was rented out to concerns in which some of the trustees were directors, it implied that the income derived out of the renting out of the building was not applied towards charitable purposes but that the renting out of the property was for such interested persons. On behalf of the assessee it has throughout been contended that the income derived from the renting out of the building was used in re-paying the loans with the ultimate object of applying the income, after the loans had been fully repaid, towards charit...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Raj Baboo Nischal Vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Verma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR333(Delhi); 154(2008)DLT568
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The Petitioner has applied under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole Arbitrator, the parties having failed to arrive at a consensus thereon.2. The Petitioner claims an Agreement dated 1st February, 1991 with the Respondent. Under the said Agreement, the Respondent, stated to be desirous of developing his business of sale and purchase of artificial jewellery and silver ornaments under the name and style of M/s Shivam Jewellers, appointed the Petitioner as his agent. Under the Agreement, the Respondent was to provide supply and make available all the said goods for sale of the same to be conducted by the Petitioner and for which the Petitioner was to be entitled to commission at the rate of 5% or at any other rate mutually settled between the parties from time to time. The Agreement further provides that the Petitioner shall conduct the business in shop bearing private No. 6 (Back side), forming part of premises N...
Tag this Judgment!National Textile Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Sh. Ashval Vaderaa
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR589(Delhi); 155(2008)DLT221
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 31st May, 2007 whereby an application made by the petitioner for referring the subject matter of suit to the arbitration was declined by the learned Trial Court.2. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession of the premises in dispute along with mesne profits. The premises were let out to the petitioner in May, 1975 and again by an agreement on 16th August, 1978. This agreement was for a period of 2 years. Thereafter, the premises remained under tenancy of the petitioner without any written agreement. The terms of oral tenancy also kept on changing and a new oral month-to-month tenancy came into existence on 1st January, 2005. There was an arbitration clause in the lease agreement dated 16th August, 1978. The respondent/landlord filed this suit for possession on the basis of termination of tenancy by a notice dated 30th August, 2006. The petitioner filed an application that the matter should be referred...
Tag this Judgment!Cross Link Cargo Management (P.) Ltd. Vs. Amrit International Rice Co. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]89SCL399(Delhi)
Gita Mittal, J.1. This petition was filed at the instance of M/s. Cross Link Cargo Management Private Limited under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent M/s. Amrit International Rice Company Limited on the ground that despite service of notice dated 29-4-2005 under Sections 433 - 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, the company has failed to meet its liability. I find that the respondent-company has sent a reply dated 7-5-2005 setting up the ground of financial constraints for non-payment. It is evident thereby that the company has admitted the liability to pay the sum of Rs. 1,26,246. The petitioner has contended that despite the lapse of a period of two weeks sought in the letter dated 7-5-2005 to make the payment, the payment has not been made for the period of over three years which has lapsed.2. On consideration of these facts, a view was taken that a case under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 157(2009)DLT450
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 11th January 1993 whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller allowed an eviction petition against the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord (respondent herein).2. The eviction petition was filed by two persons namely Smt. Uganti Devi and Smt. Sheela Devi. The petitioner made both of them as respondents. During the pendency of the petition, one of the respondent Smt. Uganti Devi, respondent No. 2 died on 25th February 1994. The petitioner made no attempt to bring on record the legal representative of deceased respondent No.2 and the petition was dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court restored this revision petition, however, an issue whether the Civil Revision as a whole would abate on death of Smt. Uganti Devi for not bringing her Lrs on record was left open by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while allowing the SLP of the petitioner. I consider that it would be appropriate to decide this ...
Tag this Judgment!Surender Singh and anr. Vs. D.S.S.S.B. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT766
ORDER1. The facts of the present cases are set out in detail in an order dated 18th August 2008 passed by this Court which reads as under:1. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 29th November 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's writ petitions.2. Each of the appellants applied for post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD') for which an advertisement was issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board ('DSSSB') sometime in May 2006.The number of vacancies advertised for the post of Teacher (Primary) was as under:Teacher (Primary) 33481. Unreserved (UR)- 15582. Scheduled Castes (SC)-2653. Scheduled Tribes (ST)-5954. Other Backward Class (OBC) -903(including Ex-Serviceman 335, Physically handicapped (O) 50 and Visually handicapped (Low vision) 50).3. By a corrigendum issued on 14th May 2006 it was stated that a number of vacancies announced in the earlier advertisement would stand modif...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax-v Vs. P.M. Electronics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Del)635; [2009]313ITR161(Delhi); [2009]177TAXMAN1(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to in short as the Act) against judgment dated 12.8.2005 in ITA No 1585/Del/2002 in respect of the assessment year 1998-99. The only issue which arises for consideration is the allowability of deduction under Section 36(1)(5a) read with Section 2(24)(x) and Section 43(B) to the assessee in respect of employer/employees contributions towards provident fund payments which were made after the due date prescribed under the Employees Provident Fund Act and the Rules made thereunder before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Sub-section 1 of Section 139.2. The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned judgment on account of the fact that the Tribunal, based on its own decision in the case of ACIT v. Vistas RRB (India) Ltd. (2005) 92 ITD 1 Delhi, has taken the view that the amendment brought about in Section 43B by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 was curative in nature and ...
Tag this Judgment!