Delhi Court July 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 14 of about 193 results (0.032 seconds)Vijay Singhania Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ250
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') challenges an order dated 7th April, 1998 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), Delhi in FIR No. 131 of 1995 holding that there was a prima facie case made out against the petitioner under Sections 337 and 304A IPC. This petition also challenges an order dated 26th November, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), dismissing Crl. Revision No. 41 of 1998 affirming the order passed by the learned MM.Background facts 2.The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that on 20th June, 1995 at around 11.15 am a building at 4883-84, Kucha Ustad Dag, Chandni Chowk, Delhi collapsed resulting the death of three persons and injuring several persons. Pursuant to the collapse, enquiries were ordered independently by the Delhi Administration and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. An FIR No. 131 of 1995 was registered under Sections 288/337/304-A/427/34 IP...
Tag this Judgment!Shilpi Shakt Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 151(2008)DLT276; 2008(104)DRJ409
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') challenges an order on charge and charge dated 5th February, 2000 and 7th February, 2000 respectively passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), New Delhi and a subsequent order dated 24th September, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), New Delhi dismissing the petitioner's Criminal Revision No. 4 of 2000.2. A preliminary objection was raised to the maintainability of this petition under Section 482 CrPC by the respondent on the ground that once a revision petition against an order on charge has been disposed of, an accused person cannot further file a petition under Section 482 CrPC to this Court .3. In support of this submission that such a petition was maintainable, Mr. R.K. Anand learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Krishnan v. Krishnaveni : 1997CriLJ1519 , Jitender Kumar Jain v. Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Sharma and ors. Vs. Mahavir Singhvi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ402
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') arising out of the same set of facts raise similar questions and are thereforee being disposed of by this common judgment. Criminal M.C. No. 4870-72 of 2006 seeks the quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 802/1/2004 titled Mahavir Singhvi v. Rakesh Sharma pending in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM') Delhi and all proceedings consequent thereto. Criminal M.C. No. 5049-50 of 2006 seeks the quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 801/2/2004 titled Mahavir Singhvi v. Rakesh Sharma pending in the court of the learned MM Delhi and all proceedings consequent thereto.2. Petitioner No. 1 is the Publisher of Hindustan Times, New Delhi. Petitioner No. 2 is its Editor and Petitioner No. 3 its Reporter/ Correspondent. The Respondent was a member of the Indian Foreign Service ('IFS') of the 1999 batch. He was appointed as a Probationer by an order dated 21st September, 1999 issued by...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. L.K. Puri and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 151(2008)DLT669; 2008(104)DRJ523
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Union of India is not satisfied with the outcome of the OA filed by the respondent No. 1, Mr. L.K. Puri, before the Central Administrative Tribunal inasmuch as the said OA of the respondent No. 1 has been allowed by the Tribunal vide its impugned judgment dated 24.1.2007 and the decision of the Government imposing the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages vide orders dated 24.6.2005 has been set aside. The petitioner maintains that such a decision was properly taken without any infirmity therein and the Tribunal should not have set aside the same.2. A brief factual matrix transpires that the respondent No. 1 was served with charge memo dated 29.11.2002 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 levelling the charge relating to handling the matter of procurement of 1000 computers for MPCM project for the year 2000-01 in his capacity as Deputy Director General (Tech.) and Sr. Deputy Director General (CPT). It was alleged that he failed to maintain absolute integrity ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhim Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 152(2008)DLT36; 2008(104)DRJ492
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This is a suit for partition and rendition of accounts. The plaintiff claims that the following properties are joint family properties:(i) No. 47 (MCD No. 8497), Arakashan Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi; (ii) Shop No. 5, Chara Mandi, Zakhira, Delhi;(iii) Shop known as Janta Dharam Kanta, Chara Mandi, Zakhira, Delhi; and(iv) Agricultural land along with built up house at village Mattan, District Rohtak (now Bahadurgarh), Haryana.The plaintiff, at the time of filing of the suit claimed a 1/7th share in the said properties which are hereinafter referred to collectively as 'the suit properties'. However, during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff's mother (Mrs Sama Kaur), who was the defendant No. 5, passed away and consequently the plaintiff now claims a 1/6th share in the suit properties.2. The plaintiff and the defendants 1-4 and 6 are the sons and daughter of late Mr. Karan Singh and late Mrs Sama Kaur (erstwhile defendant No. 5). It is stated in paragraph 1 o...
Tag this Judgment!Schering Corporation and ors. Vs. Getwell Life Sciences India Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: LC2009(1)132; 2008(37)PTC487(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. is 2226/2007 has been filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') by the plaintiffs seeking an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark 'TEMOGET' in respect of the pharmaceutical product - Temozolomide on the ground that the mark 'TEMOGET' is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks 'TEMODAL' and 'TEMODAR' in relation to the very same pharmaceutical product - Temozolomide. The plaintiffs seek the confirmation of the ex parte order dated 27.02.2007 whereby the defendant was restrained from using the mark 'TEMOGET'. The defendant seeks the vacation of that ex parte order. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that their predecessor synthesized the compound Temozolomide in 1984. Through 15 years of research and development by the plaintiffs, the said compound was found to be useful as a drug for treatment of brain cancer. Temozolomide, according to Wikipedi...
Tag this Judgment!Schering Corporation and ors. Vs. Alkem Laboratories Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 151(2008)DLT635; LC2008(3)357
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. is 4555/2007 has been filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') by the plaintiffs seeking an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark 'TEMOKEM' in respect of the pharmaceutical product - Temozolomide - on the ground that the mark 'TEMOKEM' is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks 'TEMODAL' and 'TEMODAR' in relation to the very same pharmaceutical product - Temozolomide. is No. 6041/2007 has been filed under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 4 CPC by the defendant seeking the vacation of the ex parte order passed in is No. 4555/2007 on 23.04.2007 whereby the defendant was restrained from launching /using, advertising, promoting, stocking, offering for sale or distributing or otherwise using the trademark 'TEMOKEM' or any other mark deceptively or confusingly similar to that of the plaintiff's registered trademarks 'TEMODAL/ TEMODAR' in relation to...
Tag this Judgment!Autodesk Inc and anr. Vs. Mr. A.V.T. Shankardass and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2008Delhi167; 151(2008)DLT303; 2008(105)DRJ188; LC2008(3)395; 2008(37)PTC581(Del)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants aggrieved by the order dated 5th March, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing is No. 2852/2008 praying for appointment of a Local Commissioner ex parte.2. The appellants are the owners of copyright in world famous software 3DS Max and Autodesk Maya. Appellants finding infringement and unauthorized use of their software, filed a suit against the respondents for permanent injunction to restrain infringement of copyright, delivery up, rendition of account of profits & damages etc for unlicensed usage of their software. The suit was accompanied with an application for interim injunction and application for ex parte appointment of Local Commissioner being I.A No. 2852/2008. Summons in the suit were issued and notice in the is under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was issued. However, the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner was dismissed by the impugned order against which the present appeal has been ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhir Global Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ258; [2009]176TAXMAN23(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.CM No. 7834/2008 in ITA 677/2008Allowed subject to all just exceptions.ITA Nos. 677/2008 & 679/20081. These appeals pertaining to the assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-02 have been preferred against the common order of the Tribunal passed on 03.08.2007. The only issue sought to be raised by the revenue in these appeals is with regard to the question of penalty under Section 272A(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). According to the learned Counsel for the revenue the levy of such penalty by the Assessing Officer ought to have been confirmed by the Income Tax Tribunal. According to the learned Counsel the imposition of penalty under Section 272A(2)(g) of the said Act is independent to the penalties that can be levied under Section 221 which pertain to default in depositing the tax deducted at source, which is a consequence of the assessed being in default in view of the provisions of Section 201(1). The present case, acco...
Tag this Judgment!Ramee Hotels Private Ltd. Vs. Ifci and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ459
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This writ petition seeks the setting aside of the alleged assignment in favor of respondent No. 3 made by respondent No. 1 with respect to the financial assets of Balaji Hotels Enterprises (Private) Limited which in turn owned property at Mount Road, Chennai. The petition also seeks the issuance of directions to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the purported bid of the petitioner in a transparent manner and in line with the CVC guidelines after holding that the process by which the financial assets have been assigned to respondent No 3 was illegal and invalid.2. The facts are that the respondent No. 1 (IFCI) and Respondent No. 2 (TFCI) had extended financial assistance of a total amount of approximately Rs 187.3 crores and Rs 29.9 crores respectively to Balaji Hotels and Enterprises (Private) Limited (hereinafter referred to as `Balaji Hotels'). Apart from the principal amount of the financial assistance, substantial interest had also accumulated on those amount...
Tag this Judgment!