Delhi Court July 2008 Judgments

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

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2009(1)62; 2008(37)PTC669(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These five applications are being disposed of by a common order. Three applications [two under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') and one under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC] have been filed in CS(OS) 383/2007, which is a suit based on infringement of a registered trademark as also on passing off. Two applications, both under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, have been filed in CS(OS) 1058/2002, which is a suit based on passing off action as well as for infringement of a copyright. Both the suits have been filed by the same plaintiff and in respect of the same trademark, i.e, 'OFFICER'S CHOICE'. The defendants' mark which is sought to be injuncted is 'ORIGINAL CHOICE'. Both the marks are used for the very same product, that is, whisky. 2. When the suit bearing No. CS(OS) 1058/2002 was filed, the plaintiff had not yet been granted a certificate of registration in respect of the mark 'OFFICER'S CHOICE' and, therefor...

N.G. Sheth Vs. C.B.i. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT789

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The legal nodus which has arisen in these writ petitions concerns the interpretation of Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OS Act for short), read in conjunction with sundry sections of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC hereafter). Vide Gazette Notification dated 6.3.1998 the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred upon it by Section 13(1) of the OS Act, empowered the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Delhi to try offences punishable under this statute. In terms of Notification dated 21.6.2006 of the Ministry of Home Affairs the Central Government rescinded the earlier Notification dated 6.3.1998 thereby withdrawing the special empowerment of the CMM under the OS Act in this regard. Predicated on the decision of the Delhi High Court on the Administrative side the Registrar General, Delhi High Court addressed a letter No. 28088/G-3/OS Act/Gaz/06 dated 7.12.2006 to the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi directing that all the cases pendi...

Shri Atul Rawal Vs. S.B. Equipments

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(37)PTC656(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By way of this application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), the plaintiff seeks an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, marketing, advertising or in any manner whatsoever using the trademarks 'SUPER BRIGHT', 'SUPER BRIGHT EL', 'SUPER BRIGHT EL-C', 'SUPER BRIGHT EL-81', 'SUPER BRIGHT had ULTRA' and 'SUPER BRIGHT Bleach' or any other trademark which is deceptively similar or confusingly similar to the above trademarks. It is claimed by the plaintiff that it is the proprietor of the said trademarks. The suit has been filed on the allegation that the defendant is passing off its goods as those of the goods of the plaintiff by utilising the aforesaid trademarks for its goods.2. The plaintiff is in the business of manufacturing and selling various detergent products. It is the plaintiff's case that it has developed several unique and novel detergent products s...

Pemba T. Bhutia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT500

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. The validity of Rule 18 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 1996 (CSER, 1996) as notified vide Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Govt. of India vide notification dated 14.12.1996 bearing No. 13018/8/96-AIS(I), applicable for the Civil Services (Main) Examination held in 1997 (CSE 1997) is in question in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Each year the Union Public Service Commission holds Civil Services Examinations to select candidates to fill up vacancies/posts for various Central Governments services such as IAS, IFS, IPS and a number of Group `A' and Group`B' services/posts. The Rules for the conduct of the examinations which are statutory in nature are notified each year. The present scheme of examination, known as Civil Services Examination, (CSE in short) was introduced in 1979. The Civil Services Examination is conducted in two successive stages as ...

Dharam Pal Arora Vs. Share Tips

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR411(Delhi)

Hima Kohli, J.IA No.2042/2007 (by defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC) 1. This application is filed by the defendants stating inter alia that in view of an Arbitration Clause governing the parties, the defendants propose to amend their written statement.2. A brief reference to the relevant facts of the case is necessary. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit on 21.4.1995, against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs along with interest on account of balance amount payable by the defendants towards sale and purchase of shares. The defendants No. 2 and 3 are the partners of defendant No. 1 firm, M/s Share Tips, which deals in buying and selling of shares. The plaintiff is the sole proprietor of M/s Dharampal Arora Stock and Share Brokers and is a member of the Delhi Stock Exchange Limited. Vide order dated 24.4.1995, the suit was registered and summons were issued to the defendants. Appearance was entered on behalf of defendants on 20.10.199...

Hari Vansh Chawla Vs. Prem Kutir Cooperative Group Housing Society Lim ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2009Delhi35; 2008(4)ARBLR422(Delhi); 2008(106)DRJ257

1. This appeal which arise out of the judgment and order dated 29th February, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge revolves around the question as to whether an arbitration clause in a contract survives despite the settlement which had been arrived at between the parties.2. The respondent Society is registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. The Society was allotted land by the Delhi Development Authority for construction of low income group flats for its members. The respondent Society appointed M/s. R.K &Associates; as their architects who in turn invited tenders for construction of flats. In pursuance thereto the appellant submitted his tender in the prescribed form on 17th September, 1986 and an agreement was entered into between the parties on 26th April, 1987. The total value of the work envisaged in the contract was Rs. 1.70 crores (aprox.) and the work was to be completed within the period of 30 months i.e. by September, 1989. But the appellant was not able to complete ...

Surinder Pal Vs. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ232; [2008(119)FLR551]; (2009)ILLJ753Del

ORDER1. Admit.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. By consent the appeal is taken up for hearing.3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th July, 2007passed by the learned single Judge setting aside the award of the Tribunal directing reinstatement of the workman with back wages.4. The appellant was working as a Conductor with the respondent. He was charge-sheeted on 10th January, 1992 because of his continuous unauthorised absence from duty with effect from 18th July, 1991. An enquiry was conducted as per rules and regulations and in the enquiry the appellant was found guilty of the charge. The Depot Manager issued a show cause notice to the appellant dated 9th April, 1992 as to why he should not be removed from service and thereafter an order of termination of service of the appellant was passed. The respondent made an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') to the Industrial Tr...

Sanjeev Narang Vs. Prism Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ497

Manmohan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against an order dated 24th April, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in IA No. 1475/2008 and LA. No. 4010/2008 in CS (OS) No. 220/2008 whereby the Appellant's application for restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, alienating, encumbering, executing/ registering or otherwise parting with possession of property bearing Khewat/Khata/Khasra No. 66,67,70,71,115, 116, 149 which is approximately 03.02 bighas and KheWat/Khata/Khasra No. 113/465, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142/463, 257/464 total admeasuring 19.78 bighas situated in the Revenue Estate of Village: Lamaye Meval, Patwar Area: Sirohi, Tehsil: Ajmer, District: Jaipur (Rajasthan)(hereinafter referred to as the osuit propertyo) was dismissed and Respondents application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 for vacation of ad interim injunction was allowed.2. In the plaint, it was submitted...

Sheeshpal S/O Shri Hoshiyar Singh Vs. Cgda, C.D.A. (Funds) and Union o ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This OA has been filed by seven applicants who have filed M.A. No.1064/2008 seeking permission to join and file joint application. Since common relief is sought by all the applicants and they belong to the lowest strata of the society, this MA is allowed.2. Applicants in this case are aggrieved by order dated 8.10.2007 passed by the respondents pursuant to the directions dated 15.5.2007 given by the Tribunal. In the said order respondents have stated as follows: In view of the Hon'ble CAT (PB) New Delhi order dated 8.8.2007, the case has again been examined and it is stated that as per DOP&T OM No. 49014/4/97-Estt (C) dated 29.1.1998, the pay of the casual labour in temporary status whose services are regularised as Group 'D' employees, will be fixed at the minimum of the pay scale. In view of the above provisions of DOP&T, you are not entitled to include increments/benefits earned by you as casual employee in temporary status.3. Grievance of applicants in this case is that...

Amrik Kumar Tyagi S/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant has challenged order dated 5.10.2007 (page 7) whereby his request for compassionate appointment has been rejected with a prayer to allow his OA with consequential benefits.2. It is stated by applicant that his father died on 22.12.1998. He applied for compassionate appointment whereupon his name was placed at Sl. No. 1. In 2001 he was informed his case would be considered subject to availability of vacancy. The same was repeated in 2004 stating that no vacancy is available. Being aggrieved, he filed Writ Petition but that was dismissed as not maintainable in view of L. Chandra Kumar's case (1997) SCC (L&S) 577 on 5.9.2006 (page 23). In these circumstances, he filed OA No. 525/2007 which was disposed off on 2.4.2007 by directing the respondents to pass a reasoned order.Respondent then passed orders dated 5.10.2007 rejecting his claim by giving reasons and on the basis of OM dated 5.5.2003. This order has now been challenged by the applicant on the ground that at the ti...