Delhi Court January 2009 Judgments

Microsoft Corporation Vs. Mr. G.V. Rao and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2009(2)67

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The plaintiff a company incorporated in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington (USA) and carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court also, has instituted this suit for restraining the defendants from copying, selling, offering for sale etc the counterfeit /unlicensed version of the plaintiff's software, amounting to infringement of the plaintiff's copyright in the said computer programmes and for further restraining the defendants from loading and offering for sale and distributing the plaintiff's software and/or any other product to which the plaintiff's trademark or any deceptive variants thereof have been applied without the license of the plaintiff and also amounting to infringement of plaintiff's trademark. The plaintiff has also claimed the ancillary reliefs of delivery, damages, rendition of accounts and costs.2. Vide ex parte order dated 25th August, 2005, the defendants were restrained from copying, reproducing, hard-disk lo...

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009(121)FLR206]; (2009)IILLJ666Del

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in CWP No. 2704/2003 dated 30th May, 2003, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent workers has been allowed and a mandamus has been issued to the first respondent - Union of India to refer the industrial dispute to the Industrial adjudicator.2. The respondent workers had been working with the appellant, Indian Oil Corporation (IOC for short) for more than two decades as Safai Karamcharies, except for a short period from 19th July 1995 to 20th February, 1996. Before 19th July, 1995, the workers were working for IOC at Delhi but after 20th February, 1996, they were made to work at NOIDA.3. The respondent workers along with other workers had filed a writ petition being C.W.P. No. 4158/1997 before this Court through their union praying inter-alia issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the appellant IOC to treat the workers, including the respondents herein, as thei...

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Narender Nath Gauba and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 158(2009)DLT98

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.01.1992 passed by the learned ADJ before whom, the order dated 21.04.1990 passed by the Estate Officer was assailed.2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was a tenant under the petitioner, in respect of a portion of Flat No. 1, Shankar Niwas Building, 1515-17, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, which is a public premises as defined under Section 2 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent No. 1 was a tenant specifically in respect of a premises measuring 196.37 sq. ft. (approximately) on the first floor of the aforesaid premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 79.18 paise excluding water and electricity charges. It was the case of the petitioner that as the respondent No. 1 was a habitual defaulter of payment of rent and other dues and also sublet the premises to the respondent No. 2 without...

Lowenbrau Ag and anr. Vs. JagpIn Breweries Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009BusLR360(Del); 157(2009)DLT791; LC2009(1)356

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. This Order will dispose of the application for interim injunction, I.A. No. 11355/2007 and the application for vacation of the ex parte interim injunction order, IA No. 13772/2007.2. Lowenbrau AG and In Bev India International Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the plaintiffs, for short) have filed the present suit for permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, mandatory injunction in form of delivery up against Jagpin Breweries Ltd and Lowenbrau Buttenheim (hereinafter collectively referred to as the defendants, for short). The plaintiffs claim exclusive right to use the mark/word 'LOWENBRAU', device of lion and seek a restraint order against the defendants from using the mark 'LOWENBRAU', device of lion or any other trade mark or device mark identical or deceptively similar. By an ex parte injunction order dated 3rd October, 2007 the defendants have been restrained from manufacturing, selling and advertising under the mark/word 'LOWENBRAU', devic...

Renu Nagar Vs. Anup Sing Khosla and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT723

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 21st October 2008 whereby an application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11(B) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed.2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein) before the trial court. The respondent filed this suit qua property bearing number D-49, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The petitioner was stated to be a licensee in this premises whose license was terminated. The respondent prayed to the trial court for issuing a mandatory injunction against the petitioner directing him to remove himself from the premises. Apart from that, the respondent also made a prayer for mesne profits and damages for use and occupation of the premises from the date of filing of the suit @ Rs. 30,000/- per month. The respondent valued the suit at Rs. 3,05,000/- without disclosing any basis for this valuation. The petitioner by the aforesaid applicat...

Sh. V.P. Talwar Vs. Canara Bank and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT602; [2009(121)FLR861]

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks directions against respondent No. 1 Bank for the restoration of payment of pension to him.2. Brief facts for deciding the present petition are as under:The petitioner was working as Reporter with News Service Division of All India Radio under Respondent No. 1 and took voluntary retirement in the year 1986 after completion of thirty years of meritorious service. The petitioner is aggrieved by the acts of omission of the Respondents resulting in discontinuation of payment of pensionary benefits hitherto received by the Petitioner, without any justification whatsoever, despite repeated representations and reminders. The respondent No. 1 is the disbursing authority of pension of the Petitioner while Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are arrayed since the Petitioner was working under Respondent No. 2 who sanctioned the pensionary benefits to the Petitioner through respondent No...

C.I.T. vs. D.C.M. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)513; [2009]179TAXMAN295(Delhi)

ORDER1. We have heard arguments of learned Counsel for the parties in some detail.2. On behalf of the Revenue Ms. Prem Lata Bansal presses that several questions of law arise which warrant a consideration of the present Appeal. The Revenue in its Appeal has thus proposed the following questions of law:(i) Whether ITAT was correct in law in allowing deduction of Rs. 8,71,20,781/- to the assessee being retrenchment compensation paid by the assessee to the employees of DCM - Unit situated at Bara Hindu Rao on its closure on 01.04.1989?(ii) Whether ITAT was correct in law in allowing the deduction of retrenchment compensation, which was incurred by the assessee not for the purposes of carrying on of the business but on the closure of its business on 01.04.1989?(iii) Whether ITAT was correct in law in allowing deduction of Rs. 1,86,69,703/- to the assessee being interest paid on money borrowed for the purposes of making payment of retrenchment compensation and PF to the employees of DCM Uni...

Shri Rakesh Madan and anr. Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 159(2009)DLT539

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. A second application of the plaintiffs under Section 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, after dismissal of the first application as well as appeal there against before the Division Bench is for consideration.2. The principle contention of the counsel for the defendant No. 1 is that a second application does not lie and especially after the order dismissing the earlier application for the same relief has merged in the order of the Division Bench in appeal.3. The factual matrix in which the aforesaid question has arisen is as under. The plaintiffs are the son and daughter of late Shri Des Raj Madan. The only other natural heir of Shri Des Raj Madan, as per the plaintiffs is the defendant No. 2 being the other son of Shri Des Raj Madan and the brother of the plaintiffs. Shri Des Raj Madan was admittedly the owner of property No. 152, Jagriti Enclave, New Delhi. Shri Des Raj Madan is stated to have died on 19th December, 2001 leaving the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 2 ...

Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs. Satya Bhasini Sharma

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Vide impugned order dated 10th April, 2008 passed by the District Forum whereby the appellant has been directed not to demand extra Rs. 47,500 for increased area of 25 sq.ft. of a flat and also not to make a demand of two instalments of 5% till the possession is delivered and the appellant will complete the flat in all aspects internally and externally with proper electricity and sanitary with doors fully fixed and approach road completed as per the promise and also pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment and Rs. 15,000 towards cost of litigation. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Aforesaid order was passed mainly on the allegations of the respondent that vide letter dated 17.8.2000 she was allotted a house No. AG 103B by the appellant with an approximate super built up area of 810 sq.ft. consisting of two bed rooms, one drawing/dining room, two toilets and one kitchen and also having vera...

The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Lloyds Sales Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)21VST148(Delhi)

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is a reference under Section 45(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') made to us by the Appellate Tribunal Sales Tax, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') by an order dated 24.05.1989.1.1 By virtue of the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court:i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rule 23A was repugnant to Section 2(o) and interest was not leviable on the tax calculated on the value of the raw materials purchasedii) Whether the Tribunal was justified and was empowered to hold that Rule 23A was repugnant to Section 2(o) of the Delhi Sales Tax, 19752. In order to deal with the questions referred to us, it would be necessary to detail out certain facts which have given rise to the said reference:2.1 The respondent/dealer at the relevant point of time, was engaged in the business of selling refrigerators, Air Conditioners and carrying out ins...