Delhi Court July 2008 Judgments

Govt. Nct of Delhi and anr. Vs. Jai Gopal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ238

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether the respondent is entitled to allotment of an alternative land in terms of theWelfare Scheme notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi to rehabilitate. the 'agriculturists' whose lands were acquired by the Government.2. The facts are few and may be briefly stated.The respondent purchased land measuring 4 bighas and 12 biswas. comprising khasra No. 59/25, which was situated in the revenue estate of Rithala, Delhi under a registered sale deed dated 28th November, 1981, which was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar II, Delhi on 30th November, 1981. By a notification bearing No. F-11(15)/8-L & B issued on 31st December, 1981 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the respondent's land was notified for compulsory acquisition. The respondent also approached the concerned revenue authorities for mutation of the demised land in his favour and orders in that behalf were passed by the c...

Aman Oberoi Vs. Tina Oberoi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)153PLR17

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner against respondent for defiance of the order of this Court dated 6th July, 2007 whereby this Court had directed the respondent to hand over the custody of minor child Master Laksh Oberoi to the petitioner on every Sunday at Kwality Sweets, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, New Delhi and child was to be returned to the respondent at same place same day at 6.00 pm.2. The above visitation rights were granted to the husband/petitioner by this Court after hearing both the parties and after making unsuccessful efforts to bring consensus between the parties. Thereafter, the wife made application for modification of the order. Husband also wanted more visitation rights and moved this Court for modification of the order. These application were dismissed by the Court on 12th February, 2008. Wife also approached the Supreme Court by way of an SLP against the order of granting visitation rights, but when the SLP came up for ...

Vije Kumar and ors. Vs. Vaibhav Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)3PLR40

ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13th March, 2008 passed by the learned single judge of this Court in W.P. (Crl.) No. 328 of 2008.2. The writ petition was filed by Vaibhav Gupta and his wife Anjali Gupta against the Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Station House Officer of Police Station Chitranjan Park, New Delhi alleging misuse of the power and authority by the police and seeking protection of the writ petitioners to 'use and enjoy the property which has been purchased by them for variable consideration and not to interfere into peaceful use and enjoyment of the property being E-558A, Greater Kailash II, New Delhi ('property').3. The writ petitioners in para 3 of the petition claimed that:3. ...the petitioners purchased plot measuring 723 sq. yds. More particularly described as Plot No. E-558-A, G.K. II, New Delhi vide three separate registered sale deeds dated 28.11.2006, 4.12.2006 and 18.12.2006 respectively in the name of the pet...

E.V. Abraham S/O Shri Verkey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA the applicant, who has been working as high skilled lineman in the Construction Organization of the Railways, has sought fixing his lien on regularization in Group 'D' post from the date of the screening or from the date his juniors have been regularized and also consideration for promotion in Group 'C'.2. A brief factual matrix transpires that the applicant after qualifying in the medical examination was initially engaged as a substitute khalasi-cum-trolleyman in the Railways. He was screened in 1974 and was empanelled in the grade of Rs. 196-232. However, he was drifted to Construction Organization and promoted on ad hoc basis as lineman w.e.f. 30.4.1979 in the grade of Rs. 260-400. Applicant was further promoted as senior lineman and high skilled lineman and was transferred to work under the administrative control of Executive Electrical Engineer w.e.f. 11.3.1988. Presently applicant is in the grade of Rs. 4500-7000 and attains the age of retirement on super...

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited Vs. Hindustan Unilever Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(38)PTC170(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The plaintiff seeks an injunction restraining the defendant from telecasting an advertisement, a story board of which has been filed at page 1 of the list of documents filed Along with the plaint, on the ground that it disparages the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff and its product sold under the trademark 'HARPIC'.2. The impugned advertisement is in respect of the defendant's toilet cleaner which is sold under the mark 'DOMEX'. According to the plaintiff, the impugned advertisement, while promoting the defendant's said product 'DOMEX', disparages and rubbishes blue liquid cleaners and, thereforee, is also directed against the plaintiff's toilet bowl cleaner which is sold under the mark 'HARPIC' and is blue in colour.3. According to the plaintiff, its product 'HARPIC POWER' and now the newly introduced 'HARPIC POWER OPTI-THICK' are blue acid-based cleaners. On the other hand, the defendant's DOMEX cleaner is a bleach-based cleaner and is translucent / w...

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT650; 2008(38)PTC139(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a suit for permanent injunction and damages for disparagement and unfair trade practices. The plaintiff and the defendant are competitors. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the defendant's advertisement on television, which allegedly disparages the plaintiff's soap sold under the trade mark 'DETTOL'. The defendant's advertisement is for promotion of its soap ' LIFEBUOY'.Reliefs sought by the plaintiff:2. The plaintiff has prayed that the defendant be restrained by a permanent injunction from (i) issuing or telecasting the impugned advertisement, or in any other manner disparaging the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff and its product sold under the trade mark DETTOL, in any other advertisements and in all media whatsoever including the electronic media; (2) using the depiction of the plaintiff's soap or any other soap deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's in its advertisement or in any other manner disparaging the goodwill and reputation of t...

international Coffee and Tea, Llc Vs. Sanjay L. Mansukhani

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)152PLR66

Hima Kohli, J.1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit for permanent injunction, restraining passing off, damages, delivery up etc. Despite service being effected on the defendant, none entered appearance. Accordingly, vide order dated 3.9.2007, the defendant was directed to be proceeded ex parte. Matter is placed in Court after the plaintiff has led ex parte evidence by way of affidavit. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is incorportated under the laws of the State of Delaware and has its address for business at California, USA. The suit is instituted by the constituted attorney of the plaintiff, who is authorized to sign and verify the pleadings and institute the present suit. The letter of authority issued in favour of the constituted attorney, Mr. Anand Banerjee, the deponent of the affidavit by way of evidence, is enclosed with the affidavit and marked as EX.PW-1/1. The power of attorney dated 11.7.2007, authorizing Mr. Anand Banerjee to institute the p...

Mr. N.R. Dongre Vs. L.R.M. Securities Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR402(Delhi)

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short `the Act') against the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner and the respondents entered into an agreement dated 27.1.2004, whereunder the parties agreed to settle their disputes in respect of the sale transaction of certain shares of IBP Company, for Rs. 35 lakhs. He submits that the aforesaid agreement contains an arbitration clause, being Clause No.12, whereunder it was stipulated that in the event of any disputes and differences arising between the parties, with regard to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the same shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Act.2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the execution of the aforesaid agreement, the respondents issued five post dated cheques, out of which two cheques for Rs. 10 lakhs each were dishonoured by the banker...

Sahney Kirkwood Private Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)CTLJ155(Del); 154(2008)DLT555

V.K. Shali, J.1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:A. Issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction quashing the impugned Letter No. 2002/LS/54/lb dated 1st November 2007 (Annexure P-41 Colly at Page 205-232 issued by Respondent No. 4 as being illegal and void under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;B. Issue an appropriate Writ to quash and set-aside all Letters/Orders/Memos whether issued internally or notified or published or circulated relating to the Petitioner No. 1 by which the Respondents have in any way adversely affected or prejudiced the business of the Petitioner No. 1 with Indian Railways and production units etc. under the Ministry of Railways consequent to Annexure P-41 Colly at Page 205-232;C. Direct the Respondents to continue to honour existing orders issued earlier and to make appropriate payments accordingly as also to accept/receive tenders of Petitioner No. 1.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that ...

Khaja QutubuddIn Afzal Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The following order is delivered by Km. Vijay Laxmi, Member, Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange: 2. This appeal is filed against Adjudication Order No. DD/12/BZ/HYD/2001(VS)/3448 dt. 28.08.01 passed by Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore imposing a penalty of Rs.3,50,000 (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) against the appellant Shri. Khaja Qutubuddin Afzal for contravention of the provisions of Section 9 (1) (b) and 9 (1) (d) of FERA, 1973 for having received and made payments of various amounts totalling to Rs.35,72,000 on instructions of a person resident outside India without the permission of RBI and at the same time confiscating the seized amount of Rs. 1,70,500 to the Central Govt. in terms of Section 63 of the FERA which was found involved in contravention of the provisions of the FERA. The appellant was directed by his Tribunal to make payment of 60% of the penalty amount vide order dt. 03.09.07 which was reduced to 40% by Order dt. 27.12.07of Ho...