Delhi Court July 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 19 of about 193 results (0.024 seconds)Mgmt. of Greenfields Public School Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ717
ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR DATED 21-9-200528. The petitioner preferred twelve other writ petitions, challenging the order of the Director, quantifying its liability in respect of 11 employees/ teachers. In these, the common ground urged is the Director's lack of jurisdiction. Individually, grounds such as non-application of mind to the facts have been alleged. This court proposes to deal with those petitions, separately, at the end of this judgment, before rendering the findings, and issuing operative directions. DISCUSSION29. The Act was conceived and brought into force, for regulating education in the territory of Delhi. Section 3 (3) enacts that from the commencement of the Act, the establishment of any new school or the opening of higher classes in existing schools or the closing down of any existing class in an existing school is subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Thus, with the commencement of the Act, though existing schools were fictionally deemed as recognized and ...
Tag this Judgment!Evergreen Sweet House Vs. Ever Green and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: LC2009(1)14; 2008(38)PTC325(Del)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.IA 6442/20051. This order will dispose of is 6442/2005, an application for ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the trademark and trading style 'EVERGREEN', or any other mark deceptively or confusingly similar to the plaintiff's mark.2. The Plaintiff, a partnership firm was established on 30th'September 1963 for preparing and selling rich traditional Indian sweets in the best of taste and quality.' The business has continued unhindered by the death of the original foundered; it has been functioning without interruption under the trading style/trademark 'EVERGREEN SWEET HOUSE' (herafter 'the mark').' At present there are five partners of the Plaintiff firm. Besides marketing their products wholesale to their varied customers in India and abroad, the plaintiff's EVERGREEN SWEET HOUSE, a multi-cuisine Restaurant, with 4000 sq. ft. shop floor, is situated at a conspicuous location in the prime locality of South Delhi where food to suit every palate...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 152(2008)CLT5; 2008(104)DRJ584
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The present petition filed by the petitioner seeks to challenge the action of the respondent DDA cancelling the allotment of the petitioner made in the draw held on 27th March, 1991. The petitioner also sought writ of mandamus so as to direct the respondent DDA to allot an alternative plot in the developed sector of Phase I, II or III, Rohini at old rates along with interest @ 7% as per the policy of the DDA. 2. Brief facts stated by the petitioner for claiming the said reliefs are that the petitioner was registered with the DDA under the Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 for allotment of an MIG plot and necessary registration amount was deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner is a veterinary surgeon and his job was transferable, due to which he was posted at different places at different times. Due to such frequent change of his address, the petitioner at the time of seeking registration under the said scheme had given the address of his brother i.e. C/o Shri G...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Chitra Sharma Vs. Airline Allied Services Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ434
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged downgrading of her post/status from Check Cabin Crew to cabin crew on her transfer from Mumbai to New Delhi and the unethical practice of appointing the Cabin Crew on contract basis though the post of Senior Cabin Crew is of permanent nature.2. The relevant facts for appreciating the controversies are that the petitioner was appointed as a Senior Cabin Crew for a period of three years from 7th November, 1996 to 6th November, 1999. The appointment of the petitioner was contractual and petitioner was initially employed at New Delhi. The appointment letter of the petitioner categorically stipulated that the agreement may be extended or renewed by mutual written agreement between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner asserted that respondent is a company whose affairs are entirely controlled by Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India and it is an instrumentality of the `State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Tej Singh Vs. Fci
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 152(2008)DLT243
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 18.1.2003 passed by the respondent No. 3 imposing penalty of censure and recovery of Rs. 64,756/- and the order dated 10.8.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e., respondent No. 2 therein. 2. The petitioner who at the relevant time was posted in his capacity as AG II(Depot) at one of the depots of FCI known as Kasganj was held responsible for his failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion in carrying out his duties while posted as the custodian and in-charge of the said depot in his capacity as A.G.II(D), Kasganj. During his said posting it was found that there was a storage loss of 4.56% to 4.86% during storage period of 56 to 83 months. It was also found that the petitioner had accepted higher percentage of moisture in connivance with depot staff and also recorded incorrect moisture at the time of issue/dispatch of stocks due to which the FCI suffered abnormal st...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Reckeweg and Co. Gmbh. and anr. Vs. Adven Biotech Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(38)PTC308(Del)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This order will dispose off is No. 7326 of 2007, by which the plaintiff seeks an ad-interim order to restrain the defendants from passing off and infringing the plaintiff's copyright, by using the identification numbers in respect of homeopathic medicines that are claimed to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' marks.2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are as follows. The first Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of Federal Republic of Germany, having its office at Berliner Ring 32, D-64625, Bensheim, Germany. It is manufactures and markets homoeopathic medicines for the past sixty years. The plaintiff's medicines are sold in forty countries across the globe; they have been sold in India since 1980. The second Plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the distribution and marketing of the first Plaintiff's homeopathic formulations in India.3. The Plaintiffs claim to have been manufacturing Hom...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Anuj Kumar Bharti Vs. National Book Trust and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ421
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has sought a writ or directions to the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Director (Production) pursuant to the select list prepared by them on the basis of the interview held on 14th December, 2005 in which he was placed at No. 2 and as before the expiry of the life of the select panel which was one year, the appointment of the candidate at Seriall No. 1 in the select list was cancelled and so the offer for appointment to the post of Assistant Director (Production) should have been made to him. The petitioners has also sought directions seeking quashing the re-advertisement issued by the respondents for the post of Assistant Director (Production) in March 2007 and a direction not to appoint any other person to the post of Assistant Director (Production). 2. The brief facts to comprehend the controversies between the parties are that the petitioner was born on 15th March, 1967. He applied for the post of Assistant Director (Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Deepak Johri Vs. Smt. Kumkum Johri
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ611
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment dated 2.12.2006 passed by Ms. Anju Bajaj Chandna, learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, thereby dismissing the divorce petition filed by the appellant under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. The brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal inter-alia are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 4.12.1980 in Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After their marriage the party cohabited as husband and wife till 1981. As per the appellant the respondent had left the matrimonial home on 9.7.81 without any reasonable excuse and all efforts made by the appellant to bring back the respondent went in vein. That on 2.11.1981, a male child was born out of the wedlock. The appellant had even deputed his maternal uncle and Sh. Shiv Kumar Mathur, through whom the said marriage was arranged, to bring back the respondent to the matrimoni...
Tag this Judgment!Mspl Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ545
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The Petitioner in these writ proceedings seeks a direction for quashing of an order dated 24.2.2006, issued by the Central Government and a further direction that Section 17-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957 (hereafter 'the Act') is mandatory, and that all reservations made prior to and after the coming into force of that provision and contrary to it, are void. A consequential direction to the Central Government to grant the Petitioner, mining leases in terms of its application is also sought. 2. Briefly the facts are that the Central Government issued the Industrial Policy Resolution in 1956. In terms of the policy, mining was an industry listed in the Schedule (to that Policy) meant for exclusive responsibility of the State but without precluding private sector participation. Soon after this policy document was issued Parliament passed the Act; it was brought into force on 1.6.1958. Section 2 of the Act declared Parliamentary in...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. R.N. Gupta Technical Educational Society Vs. Delhi Development Aut ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ563
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The Petitioner seeks direction to modify terms and conditions of a provisional letter of allotment issued on 16.10.2000 by the Delhi Development Authority, Respondent (hereafter called ``DDA'`) with a consequential direction to the DDA to allot it 3 acres of land and charge rates prevailing as on 15.9.1997 with a further direction for quashing of the letter dated 22.8.2003.2. The facts necessary for deciding this case are that the writ petitioner a Registered Society applied for allotment of land for the purpose of a Technical College to the DDA on 23.6.1994. The Petitioner avers about excellence of its institutions and of having established the Agra Institute of Technology at Jia Sarai in 1992 in rented premises. It claims that the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) informed the DDA on 4.7.1995 about approval to the Petitioner?s, in regard to the Aditya Institute of Technology (as the Agra Institute of Technology was re-named later); the letter als...
Tag this Judgment!