Delhi Court September 2008 Judgments

Ex. Major Manjeet Singh Ahluwalia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT192

ORDER AND MILITARY, ARMY ACT DISCIPLINESECTION 63 in that he, at Field, on 07 Nov 82, being the officiating officer commanding of 116 Medium Regiment, improperly caused 51 sheep/goats be lifted by his jawans and sold them well knowing that the same were the property of nearby villagers.FOURTH CHARGE AN ACT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ...

SalahuddIn Qureshi Vs. Ndmc

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT771; 2008(106)DRJ627

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a short and interesting question of law has been raised by the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners is that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 (P.P Act) does not apply to the premises belonging to the New Delhi Municipal Council (the Municipal Council), as such premises do not fall within the definition of 'public premises' contained in Section 2(e) of the P.P Act. It is urged that, consequently, the Estate Officer of the respondent Municipal Council has no jurisdiction to proceed to either evict the petitioners, who are occupying premises belonging to the Municipal Council, or to levy damages upon them by resort to the P.P. Act.2. The petitioners have filed these petitions on account of issuance of orders of cancellation of the respective allotments made to them in Gole Market. In these cancellation orders the respondent Municipal Council has thre...

Ritu Raj Kant Vs. Anita

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2008)DMC827

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. With the consent of the Counsel for parties this petition is heard finally and being disposed of by following order.2. The petitioner challenged an order of the learned ADJ whereby he fixed maintenance of Rs. 1500/- p.m. for the respondent and her son under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is undisputed fact son Jitender was not from this wedlock and he was not son of the petitioner. He was son of the respondent from her earlier husband. Right to claim maintenance for Jitender would be against his father i.e. earlier husband of the respondent and not against the petitioner however, the Court below had not considered this aspect at all and order is liable to be set aside on this ground.3. In her application, the wife had made allegations about the husband's (petitioner herein) income as under:The petitioner was doing job of tuition and earning more than Rs. 10,000/- p.m. and huge amount in lacs was in circulation in the market on interest from which hu...

Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another Vs. Arati Chatterjee

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.4.2008 passed by the District Forum whereby the appellant has been directed to pay the insured amount to the legal heirs of the life assured and also to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 towards cost of litigation, by holding the rejection of the claim of the deceased by the appellant as unjustified. 2. Relevant facts leading to the impugned order in brief are that her husband has taken two policies bearing No. 122285956 and 12119603 on 9.12.2003. It is pleaded that the husband of the respondent died on 4.5.2006 due to cardiac arrest in St. Stephens Hospital. The respondent made representation for death claim of both the policies. One of the policy bearing No. 12119603 was settled on 20.7.2006 and another policy bearing No. 122285956 was pending with the appellant which was investigated by the appellant and also obtained certificate from the employer of the deceased. In March 2007, ...

Ganpati International Sarvpriya Vihar Apartments Vs. Uzbekistan Airway ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. The complaint of the petitioner was allowed by this Commissionvide order dated 10.10.2006 in the following terms: Taking overall view of the matter as well as the nature of transaction between the parties and the mitigating circumstances explained by the OP as to the delay in lifting the cargo we deem that lump sum compensation of Rs. l,00,000 (Rs. one lac) would meet the ends of justice. Payment shall be made within one month. Though OP claims that it is a State and performs sovereign function and therefore it could be sued only after service of notice under Section 86 of CPC, the execution of the aforesaid order shall be subject to the production of the documentary evidence by the OP bringing it within the ambit of those entities that are governed by the provisions of Section 86(6) of CPC or may produce any certificate from the Government authority in this regard at the time of execution proceedings. 2. Pursuant to the execution petition, the respond...

Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT452

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this Writ Petition it has, inter alia, been prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the Order dated 6.12.2006 of the Government of India (GOI) directing the repatriation to the GOI of equity held by it in the Petitioner Society, namely, Krishak Bharti Co-operative Limited (KRIBHCO). It is necessary to reproduce the said Order, inter alia, to demonstrate that it fails altogether to address or adumbrate the nature of the public interest which it endeavours to protect or project:WHEREAS the Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. (KRIBHCO), a Multi-state Cooperative Society registered under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (39 of 2002) and is a fertilizer production unit in the Cooperative Sector and as per item 5 of Schedule II to Rule 3 of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules is under the administrative responsibility of the Department of Fertilizers; AND WHEREAS the Government of India is a member and a majority shareholder i...

Mattel, Inc. and ors. Vs. Mr. Jayant Agarwalla and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT548; LC2008(3)298; 2008(38)PTC416(Del)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This order shall dispose off IA No. 2352/2008 preferred by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1&2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trademark and copyright of the plaintiffs in the board game called SCRABBLE. 2. The first plaintiff is a company incorporated in Delaware, United States. The second and third plaintiffs, incorporated in the United Kingdom and India respectively, are wholly owned subsidiaries of the first plaintiff. They aver to being leading manufacturers of toys, games and consumer products. Their best selling brands include 'Barbie', 'Hot Wheels', 'Matchbox', 'Little People' and a wide assortment of entertainment inspired toy lines. 3. One of the well-known products of the plaintiffs is the board game marketed and popularized by the name 'SCRABBLE' (hereafter referred to as 'the game'). This word-based game challenges the players to form words on a grid; points a...

Babu Ram Dharam Prakash Vs. Izuk Chemical Works

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(38)PTC209(Del)

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This Appeal assails the Order dated 11.5.2007 of the learned Single Judge granting an ex parte ad interim injunction to the Plaintiff, as prayed for in the Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Briefly stated, the Defendants have been restrained from using the Plaintiff's Trademark 'Moon Star' and/or from using the device of a star in the lap of the moon or any part thereof or any of the Defendant's products or business.2. Indeed, the learned Single Judge has passed a very detailed Order in which various precedents, including Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. Hind Cycles Limited , Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Tata Oil Mills Ltd. AIR 1943 Lah 196, James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. v. The National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. : AIR1951Bom147 , Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta : [1963]2SCR484 , Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. : [1960]1SCR968 , K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal and Company : [1970]1...

The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford Vs. Na ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ482; LC2008(3)402; 2008(38)PTC385(Del)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This order will dispose of IA No. 9823/2005, IA No. 647/2006, IA No.51/2006 preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, respectively. The plaintiff allegs violation of copyright in its literary work and seeks an order restraining the defendants from infringing its copyright. 2. The plaintiff is a well-known publisher of academic books, and started publishing in India in 1912. It has established show rooms in different places of India. The plaintiff avers to publishing substantial number of school books for use from Kindergarten to the twelfth standard, with the help of a team of highly trained and committed editorial, research, production and marketing professionals. These books cover most disciplines including science, mathematics, languages, humanities and economics, for most Educational Boards including CBSE and ICSE. 3. The plaintiff has published, in two parts, a text book for the students of Class XI, follow...

J.K. Synthetics Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN207(Delhi)

ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against the decision of the Central Board of Direct Taxes conveyed to the petitioner through the letter of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax dated 27-8-1992 which is Annexure-A to the writ petition and is at page 12 of the paper book.2. By virtue of the said communication it is apparent that the petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') in filing the return for the assessment year 1988-89 has been rejected. The petitioner had claimed refund of the excess TDS deducted and paid as an agent of the non-resident company--Zimmer AG, West Germany.3. We have given several opportunities to the learned Counsel for the revenue to take instructions. However, till date no such instructions are forthcoming inasmuch as the learned Counsel for the revenue states that according to her information the assessment record stands transferred to the Assessing O...