Delhi Court April 2008 Judgments

Anil Diwan and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT697

Rekha Sharma, J.1. Rama Road in West Delhi was conceived as an 'Industrial Area' for extensive industries with large industrial plots. The area was developed by the Delhi Improvement Trust and pursuant thereto plots were sold on leasehold basis. One of the conditions attached was that the plots so sold shall not be sub-divided. It is not in dispute that despite the bar against sub-division the plots were divided and sub-divided without obtaining permission or sanction from the appropriate authorities. The massive scale at which the sub-divisions have taken place can be judged from the fact that out of the originally allotted 61 plots 37 have been sub-divided. Seven of such plots bearing number 53,54,70,63,69,33-33A and 21 fall in Karol Bagh zone. Though before division the said seven plots measured between 50221 and 4087 square meters they have been so brutally sub-divided that from out of the said 7 plots 305 plots have been carved out with an area varying from 13238 to 11 square mete...

Bda Private Limited Vs. Paul P. John and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2008(2)304; 2008(37)PTC41(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this application under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') praying for an order that the present suit be stayed pending final disposal of proceedings before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). It is contended by the plaintiff that the defendants filed an amended written statement on 15.01.2008 wherein they have pleaded that their trademark 'ORIGINAL CHOICE' and the device in Class 33 for 'wines, spirits and liqueurs' has been registered under No. 722161. It is further contended that the defendants, on the strength of the said registration, have raised the plea that in view of the provisions of Section 28(3) read with Section 30(2)(e) of the said Act, the plaintiff's relief for infringement of trademark as, inter alia, prayed in this suit, would not be maintainable against the defendants. It is further stated by the plaintiff that on 29.01.2008, an amended replication to the de...

S.N. Malhotra and Sons Vs. Airport Authority of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR76(Delhi); 149(2008)DLT757; 2008(103)DRJ196

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. Challenge raised in this appeal is to the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated December 12, 2001 passed in OMP No. 1/2000 and 2/2000.2. An agreement No. 36/EE(C)/AMD-II/T-II/96-97 was entered into between the respondent herein (Airport Authority of India) and the appellant on 18.09.1996 pertaining to the work of special repairs to the terminal building at IGI Airport, Terminal-II. The amount settled was negotiated at Rs. 9,01,797/- for certain renovations of a particular area in the aforesaid terminal building. The work was to commence on 31.08.1996 and it had to be completed on 28.02.1997. After the final bill had been prepared, the appellant set up certain claims vide letter dated 30th June, 1998. Disputes arose regarding the aforesaid claims and certain counter-claims were raised by the respondent. By his letter dated 06.11.1998, the appellant invoked the arbitration clause and requested for reference of the said disputes to arbitration. Responde...

Smt. Shammi Madan Vs. Gaon Sabha, Nangali Sakharavati and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT146; 2008(102)DRJ728

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th August, 2004 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant holding that the appellant and the other two persons, who had purchased parts of khasra No. 12/5, have not sought partition and that in the revenue records the holding continues to be one, and consequently erection of partition wall on the land in question resulted in plots being carved out because of which the provisions of Section 81 are contravened. The aforesaid findings and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge are under challenge in this appeal on which we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant has unsuccessfully approached various revenue courts which recorded a uniform finding of fact holding that the provisions of Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') are violated by the appellant and, thereforee, the relie...

Surana Telecom Limited and Bhagyanagar India Limited Vs. Bharat Sancha ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR94(Delhi); 2008(102)DRJ459

Hima Kohli, J.1. By way of this common order and judgment, the Court proposes to dispose of AA No. 247/2007 & AA No. 248/2007 as the disputes in both the cases arise out of the same contract and the respondent in both the cases is common. The present petitions are filed by the petitioner praying, inter alia, for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. For the sake of convenience, facts of AA No. 247/2007 are being recorded herein.2. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent-BSNL invited bids vide tender notice dated 27.8.2002 for supply of mobile terminals, fixed terminals etc. The petitioner responded to the aforesaid tender and submitted its bid and was awarded a purchase order dated 5.11.2003. The said purchase order also contained an Annual Maintenance Contract. The said Annual Maintenance Contract was forwarded by the respondent to the petitioner on 19-20.7.2005 and was signed and returned by the petitioner to ...

Span Diagnostic Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Design and anr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2009(1)22; 2008(37)PTC56(Del)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The question which I am called upon to answer, for the moment, in the instant appeals is:Whether the appeals are maintainable and if yes, whether the same require to be transmitted to the Appellate Board established under Section 83 of the T.M. Act, 1999?2. The question of law afore-noted has arisen due to the amendments incorporated in the Patents Act, 1970 by the Patents Amendment Act, 2002 notified on 25th June, 2002 but various provisions thereof brought into force firstly on 20.5.2003 and the remaining by and under a notification issued in the year 2007 as also the further amendment to the Patents Act, 1970 by the Patents Amendment Act, 2005, again bringing into effect the provisions of the said Amendment Act on 2 different dates. 3. As I would be referring to the date with effect wherefrom the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2002 and 2005 were brought into effect, I would be noting the amended provisions as in force with effect from the notified dates and...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Beatty Chemicals

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR371(Delhi); 2008(102)DRJ546

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The Union of India being the petitioner herein has filed an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking directions to the arbitrator (respondent No. 2) to file the award dated 28.05.1999 with the arbitration proceedings in this case and to make the award rule of the court.2. In response to notice of this petition being sent to the arbitrator, the arbitrator (respondent No. 2) filed the award in original along with the arbitration proceedings before this Court in the present suit. Notice of filing of the award was sent to the respondent being the contractor. The respondent filed objections against the said award and those objections, filed by the respondent were registered as is No. 1022/2001.3. By this judgment, I would like to decide the objections (IA No. 1022/2001) filed by the respondent against the arbitral award dated 28.05.1999 made and published by the sole arbitrator-Ms. Shail Goel.4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are th...

Urban Improvement Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Vide impugned order dated 2.1.2008, passed by the District Forum, the appellant company has been directed to refund Rs. 2,00,000 to the respondent and also to pay Rs. 50,000 for illegally withholding the security amount and subjecting the respondent to mental agony and undue hardship besides Rs. 1 0,000 as cost of litigation. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Allegation of the respondent leading to the impugned order in brief were that M/s. Vipul Real Estate P. Ltd. was a broker/agent of the company M/s. Urban Improvement Trust and the respondent approached their office in Faridabad for the purchase of plot No.1151 B, Green Field Colony. The agent introduced the respondent with the appellant and obtained the agreement. Conveyance deed dated 30.10.2003 was prepared. The appellant compelled the respondent to deposit Rs. 2,00,000 as security deposit vide letter dated 22.9.2003. The respondent had paid full payment of the plo...

Bishamber Nath Sikka Vs. Tata Motors Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Aforesaid two appeals arise from the order dated 4th April, 2006 passed by the District Forum whereby the appellant Tata Motors , manufacturer of the car and respondent No. 2 Him Motors Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the dealer who sold the car to respondent No. 1 have been jointly and severally held guilty for selling a defective car and given the following directions: (i) Deliver the car after repair (particularly the defect of overheating) free of charge. However, it is clarified that if battery needs replacement, it shall be done at the cost of complainant. (ii) To issue a warranty of one year free of cost in respect of repair of overheating valid from the date of delivery of vehicle. (iii) OP will not charge any amount on account of parking charges from the complainant. (iv) Both OPs will pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 as symbolical compensation to the complainant. 2. Appellant Tata Motors is aggrieved of the order itself whereas appellant Bishamber Nath Sikka i.e. the c...