Delhi Court September 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
United Breweries Ltd. Vs. Indo Agro Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT16
Hima Kohli, J. 1. The present suit is instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant for rendition of accounts, permanent injunction against infringement of trademark, copyright and passing off. The suit was registered on 25.4.2005 and summons were issued to the defendant returnable for 17.5.2005. On the same date, an interim order was passed on an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC being I.A. No. 3013/2005 restraining the defendant, its agents, distributors, dealers, etc., from using the trademark 'KINGFRESHER' or any other similar or deceptively similar trade name on their beverages and other products. They were also restrained from using logo which may be deceptively similar to the logo of the plaintiff.2. The defendant was duly served with the summons which were refused. As the summons were refused, vide order dated 8.5.2006, the defendant was directed to be proceeded against exparte and the plaintiff was directed to file its exparte affidavit by...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Goyal M.G. Gases Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Del)66; [2009]316ITR303(Delhi); [2009]176TAXMAN189(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 23.11.2007 in the assessee's appeal before it for the assessment year 1999-2000. The facts relevant for the present appeal are that an assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner, Income Tax invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the said Act passed an order on 25.3.2004 setting aside the said assessment order and directing the Assessing Officer to calculate taxable income according to the merchantile system of accounting. The Commissioner of Income Tax gave a specific direction that the Assessing Officer shall pass the consequential orders 'within a period of three months approximately'.2. The assessee being aggrieved by this order passed by the Commissioner, Income Tax preferred the said appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal came to be heard by the Tribunal on 13.11.2007, the learned Counsel for the assessee pointed ou...
Nalini Singh Associates Vs. Prime Time - Ip Media Services Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR29(Delhi); 153(2008)DLT174; 2008(106)DRJ734
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) is filed by M/s.Nalini Singh Associates (hereinafter referred to as the Objector, for short) challenging the interim Award dated 31st May, 2003.2. The Objector is engaged in production of news and current affairs related television programmes and had entered into a business relationship with M/s.Prime Time-IP Media Services Limited (hereinafter referred to as the respondent, for short). By Memorandum of Understanding dated 1st November, 1996, the respondent was appointed as an exclusive agent for sale of advertisement time also known as 'free commercial time' for news based programme titled Aankhon Dekhi on Doordarshan channel. Subsequently, the respondent was also appointed as an exclusive agent for selling advertisements or free commercial time for the news programme called Dopahar Aankhon Dekhi.3. The Memorandum of Understanding date...
Shri Mangi Lal Meena S/O Shri Jagannath Meena Vs. Lt. Governor Through ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2008
Reported in: 153(2008)DLT186
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The question for our consideration is whether the departmental inquiry held against the Petitioner was in accordance with law or not. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) that there was no error in the conduct of the inquiry.2. The Petitioner was a sub-inspector in the Delhi Police and a departmental inquiry was held against him on the following charges:(i) On 9.9.1988 while he was posted at P.S. Lajpat Nagar, he failed to report the action taken on D.D. entry No. 14-A dated 9.9.1988 which was entrusted to him for enquiry.(ii) On 9.9.1988 at about 10.30 P.M. the applicant along with Shri Sandeep Mehta and local police visited premises No. E-84, Lajpat Nagar, to the residence of one Shri Sudershan Kumar Sehgal and misbehaved and manhandled his brother and family members. He also ill-treated Shri Sehgal brothers and one Shri Dwarka Nath on the same night.3. The inquiry officer found the Petitioner guilty of...
Trading Engg. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR120(Delhi); 2008(106)DRJ711
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner challenges the correctness of an award of a sole arbitration dated 30th May, 2005 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act).2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent (hereinafter called DGS&D;) for supply, erection and commissioning of 2X750 KVA DG sets and one 750 KVA transformer. These equipments were to be supplied, erected and commissioned in the premises of the Indian Navy at Port Blair. The value of the transformer was Rs. 3,70,000/- and its commissioning charges were Rs. 20,000/-.3. It is undisputed that the original specification for the transformer was DY-11; it was, however, later changed to YD-11. This change led to considerable dispute. The petitioner's contention was that the AT unit of the respondent had confirmed to the standards and specifications of YD-11, whereas the respondents on the other hand maintained that it was in fact DY-11. ...
Master Abhishek Mehra and ors. Vs. Dlf Commercial Developers Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR189(Delhi); 154(2008)DLT518; 2008(106)DRJ758
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present application is filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), praying inter alia for rejection of the plaint, on the ground that the suit is barred by law. 2. It is stated by the counsel for the defendant that a bare perusal of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs discloses that the subject matter of the present suit is pending adjudication before the nominated Arbitrator to whom a reference was made by this Court, vide order dated 13.10.2004. In this respect, he draws the attention of this Court to the averments made by the plaintiffs in paras 15 and 16 of the plaint, wherein they have admitted the fact that the subject matter of disputes between the parties, as raised in the present suit is also the subject matter of consideration before the learned Arbitrator. Counsel for the defendant states that as the learned Arbitrator is seized of the entire controversy between the parties, and the matter is pending adjudication b...
Delhi Tamil Education Association Vs. Directorate of Education
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: 153(2008)DLT261
S.N. Aggarwal, J. 1. Delhi Tamil Education Association (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Petitioner') is a linguistic minority registered society. The said society has established seven educational institutions for imparting education from Class I to Class XII primarily to the children belonging to Tamil population living in Delhi. It has established seven schools in Mandir Marg, Pusa Road, Lodhi Road, R.K. Puram, Moti Bagh, Laxmi Bai Nagar and Janak Puri. These schools established by the petitioner society are recognized by the Government of NCT of Delhi and are receiving 95% grant from the Government. The petitioner society has appointed 33 Assistant Teachers in its schools w.e.f. 03.07.2007 pursuant to interviews held on 31.01.2007 and 01.02.2007. These teachers are stated to have not been paid their salary ever since their appointment till date for want of release of grant by the Government. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of impugned commun...
Sunil Dang Vs. Indian Newspaper Society
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: [2009]149CompCas563(Delhi); [2008]88SCL121(Delhi)
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. Owing to the urgent nature of the relief claimed, short notice was issued to the defendant.2. The defendant is a company within the meaning of Section 25 of Companies Act. The plaintiff claims to hold two membership of the defendant company. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, inter alia, on the ground that the defendant has treated both the membership of the plaintiff to have ceased on the ground of the plaintiff having not paid his subscription; that the elections of the defendant have been announced to be held on 19-9-2008 and nomination of the election has to be filed at least seven days prior to the election; that the plaintiff in accordance with the Articles of Association of the defendant had tendered the subscription fee along with an additional Rs. 500 required to be paid, but the defendant has not restored the membership of the plaintiff and has on the contrary referred the matter to Sub-Committee, intentiona...
Dhruv Chand and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: II(2008)DMC695
Sunil Gaur, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband and petitioner No. 3 is mother- in-law of the complainant. They are present in person. Mr. Anuj Kumar Garg, learned Counsel for all the eight petitioners states that he has instructions from all the petitioners to submit on their behalf.2. Petitioner-Husband Dhruv Chand has filed an affidavit dated 4th April, 2007 on record that he has amicably settled this matter with the complainant. Correspondingly, complainant Smt. Sangeeta has also filed an affidavit of the even date stating likewise.3. On the complaint of Ms. Sangeeta, FIR No. 384/2003 under Sections 498A/406/34, IPC was registered at P.S. Badarpur, New Delhi against the petitioners herein.4. It is not disputed before me that petitioner No. 1 and the complainant have obtained divorce by mutual consent. A copy of the decree of divorce has also been placed on record.5. Respondent No. 2 Ms. Sangeeta is present in Court and she has been identified by ASI Girraj Singh, Investigating Off...
Pankaj Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1576
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this order I proceed to dispose of Crl M.C. No. 1945/07 which seeks the quashing of F.I.R. No. 78/2006 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi, under Sections 420 r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act), and also Crl M.A. No. 11358/07 which has been filed to seek the transfer of the investigation to CBI.2. The petitioner claims to be the proprietor of M/s Medicare Textiles, a firm stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying surgical dressings. The petitioner states that he has been supplying surgical dressings to a number of hospitals, including those falling under the Government of Delhi, for the past 10 years.3. As per the case of the prosecution, one Sh. Mishri Lal, stated to be the General Secretary of the Lok Nayak Hospital Employees Union, 717, Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, made a complaint to the police on 06.11.2006 stating that the petitioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »