Delhi Court May 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 1 of about 224 results (0.024 seconds)Harichintan Singh Malik and anr. Vs. Samarjit Singh Malik and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ219
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application in a partition suit. The preliminary decree was passed on 28.5.2007. Thereafter, the property was directed to be sold. Unfortunately, for one reason or the other, it could not be sold. Now, after going through the process of mediation, the parties have arrived at a compromise and have settled their disputes with regard to the sale of the property. The parties agree and undertake to sell the entire suit property bearing No. 4, Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi-110001 admeasuring 2.8 acres approximately to Greatway Estates Ltd., having its registered office at H-65 Connaught Circus, New Delhi - 110001 through its authorized Director, Shri Amar Sarin, for a total sum of Rs 210 crores.2. The terms of the sale are set out in detail in the application in paragraphs 1 (a) to 1 (j). The same need not be repeated herein. All the parties have undertaken to abide by the said compromise. The counsel for the parties pointed out that there is a typographical...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jiva Institute of Vedic Sc ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: LC2008(3)82; 2008(37)PTC468(Del)
T.S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal arises out of an ex parte ad interim order of injunction dated 17th October, 2006 passed by learned single Judge on the original side of this Court whereby the appellant-company has been restrained from using the trade name and/or trademark 'JIVA' or any other identical, deceptively similar or confusing trade name in relation to any of its goods or services and from manufacturing, producing or rendering and offering for sale and/or advertising, marketing any goods or services under the trade name and/or trademark 'JIVA'.2. The factual matrix leading to the institution of the suit in the present appeal may in nutshell be stated as under:3. Plaintiff No. 1/respondent herein is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 while plaintiff No. 2/respondent herein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. Plaintiff No. 3/respondent herein is one of the members of the first plaintiff society and also its President. He also claims to be...
Tag this Judgment!Adobe Systems Incorporated Vs. Sh. Rohit Rathi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 152(2008)DLT646; 2008(104)DRJ208; LC2008(3)380; 2008(37)PTC523(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The plaintiff, inter alia, seeks a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the domain name www.adobeinc.org or using any other business or domain name containing the trademark 'ADOBE' or any other deceptively similar variant of the said trademark on the internet or otherwise so as to amount to infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark. A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing off their goods, services, business or domain name as that of the plaintiff has also been sought. The plaintiff has also prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 to transfer the domain name www.adobeinc.org to the plaintiff as well as to render all assistance to the plaintiff in bringing about the said transfer. A decree for damages of Rs 20 lakhs has also been sought Along with costs.2. On 28.09.2007, this Court directed the issuance of summons in the suit, returnable on 19.02.2008...
Tag this Judgment!Col. R.P.S. Dhillon Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ334
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The petitioner was serving as Colonel in Indian Army. He was transferred to NCC Group Headquarters Rajasthan at Jaipur (a peace station), where he was also provided with family accommodation. Thereafter, he was transferred to NCC Headquarters Jorhat (Assam) (A non hard Military Station). He joined his duties there on 4.12.1999. It has been submitted that as per para 8 of Special Army Order (SAO) 10/S/86 the service officers posted to NCC Dtes/GPHQ/Units have to be treated as part of the local garrison and are entitled for allotment of Government accommodation along with other service officers posted in that station.2. It is the case of the petitioner that after his posting to Jorhat(Assam), he applied for a separated family accommodation to the Army Headquarters at Delhi Cantonment. However no such accommodation was allotted. In fact a non-availability of accommodation certificate (NA) was also issued to him. Thereafter he hired a accommodation in Noida (within th...
Tag this Judgment!N. Block Welfare Assn. Regd. and anr. Vs. Dmrc and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 152(2008)DLT458; 2008(104)DRJ266
T.S. Thakur, J.1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed in public interest. They call in question the correctness of a decision taken by the respondents for construction of an 'elevated corridor' for the proposed DMRC project from Central Secretariat to Badarpur in Delhi. The challenge is primarily founded on the following five pleas:i. That the elevated corridor from defense Colony to Nehru Place violates the fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to have clean and pollution free environment as the proposed elevated corridor would not only destroy the greenery, aesthetics and the general landscape of the area but also violate the privacy of the owners/occupants of property situate on either side of the corridor.ii. That the elevated corridor from defense Colony to Badarpur would create noise pollution and violate Section 2 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the rules fram...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Charan Vs. High Court of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 150(2008)DLT719
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners herein were appointed as the members of the Delhi Judicial Service in 1972-73 and were promoted to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service on an adhoc basis. The petitioners along with Sh.M.S.Rohilla were reverted to Delhi Judicial Service on 15.02.1995. Sh.Rohilla challenged the order of reversion by filing a WP(C)4589/1995 but the petitioners herein accepted the reversion. Sh. M.S.Rohilla succeeded in the writ petition which was decided by the Full Bench of this Court in M.S. Rohilla v. High Court of Delhi at New Delhi : 129(2006)DLT737 . It was held that though the High Court had the control over the subordinate judiciary including disciplinary jurisdiction, it had no authority to pass an order against a judicial officer which had the effect of removal from service or reduction in rank as such power is vested with the Lieutenant Governor. The recommendation of the High Court for reverting the petitioner had not been sent to the Administrator of Del...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupinder Singh Patel Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4396
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The common thread that weaves through the present petitions is the aspect of criminal culpability of persons undertaking 'sting' operations under the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The said revision petitions are filed against the order on framing charges. 2. On 05-11-2003, M/s. Dilip Singh Judeo (accused No. 1), the then Union Minister of State for Environment & Forests allegedly received illegal gratification in the sum of Rs. Nine lacs in the presence of his Additional Private Secretary (APS), Shri Natwar Rateria (accused No. 2) from one Shri Bhupinder Singh Patel @ Rahul (accused No. 3) as consideration for future 'favours' with regard to certain mining projects in the states of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa. The said incident had been secretly video recorded by accused No. 3 and one Shri Arvind Vijaymohan (accused No. 4) acquainted with accused No. 3 who arranged for t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Kumar and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 151(2008)DLT353
Anil Kumar, J. 1. The petitioners have sought quashing of order dated 18th September, 2007 passed by the respondents and a direction to the respondents to include the name of the petitioners in the final list of selected candidates and to appoint them on the post of Security Assistant Grade-II in Rajya Sabha.2. The brief relevant facts for the adjudication of this case are that the petitioners applied for selection to the post of Security Assistant Grade II pursuant to the advertisement No. 19(N) published in the employment news of 22-28 July, 2006. After verification of petitioners' application forms, the roll Nos. 5527 and 5522 were issued to both the petitioners by the respondents. Thereafter call letters dated 10th January, 2007 were issued to the petitioners. The petitioners contended that it was stipulated in the call letters that only those candidates who qualified the written examination would be called for Physical Measurement Tests and Physical Efficiency Tests. As the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri Ram Rattan S/O. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ312
V.B. Gupta, J.1. Insurance Company has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as 'Act') against the award dated 29th January, 2008, passed by MACT in this case.2. The facts in brief are that on 19th November, 2004 at about 9.10 a.m. deceased Devender was going on his Motor Cycle No. DL-4S-AR-3084. When the deceased reached near Chowk, Sector 8-9, Dwarka, an Optra Car No. DL-3C-AE-0339 came at a very high speed and hit the Motor Cycle of the deceased. The car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 4. As a result of this impact by the car, Devender died at the spot. The deceased was aged about 22 years and was working with M/s. Carex Cargo Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. on a monthly salary of Rs. 4,500/-. He possessed sound health, free from any kind of ailments. He was the only bread earner of the family. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 5 and it was insured with the appellant.3. Vide the impugned judgment,...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaji Educational Trust and anr. Vs. Housing and Urban Dev. Corp. L ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 151(2008)DLT176; 2008(106)DRJ162
S.L. Bhayana, J.1. These petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 15.9.2006 passed by the Court of Shri V.K. Gautam, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in the case titled as 'Housing & Urban Development Corporation Limited v. Maharaji Educational Trust' in CC No. 55/1 (Old CC No. 3703/2002) filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and for quashing the proceedings pending before the learned trial Court.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 is a charitable educational trust and the petitioner No. 2 is the Chairman & Managing trustee of the said trust. Shri D. Balram is the authorized representative of petitioner No. 1 duly authorized by the Chairman and the Managing Trustee of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is running medical and dental colleges at Ghaziabad and Chennai. The respondent had filed a complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the petitioners were summoned by the trial C...
Tag this Judgment!