Delhi Court January 2009 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.
Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Chagan Bhai Patel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: LC2009(1)194
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The plaintiff being the registered proprietor of the trademark / trade name LARSEN and TOUBRO, on coming to know of the application of the defendant for registration of the mark LARSON in relation to plywood, veneer wood, venners, wood panelling, wood pulp board, timber, partitions not of metal, mouldable wood, door frames not of metals, door panels not of metals, doors not of metals, building timber, boards not of metal in class 19, instituted this suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using in relation to its business the mark/logo LARSON or any other similar mark or name deceptively similar to that of plaintiff and for restraining the defendant from passing off its goods and business as that of the plaintiff. Ancillary reliefs of damages and delivery were also claimed.2. Vide ex parte order dated 31st August, 2007, the defendant was restrained from using in relation to any of its business/ goods/ services/products including those in cl...
Cadbury Ltd and ors. Vs. Tims Foods Private Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: LC2009(1)161
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The suit is instituted by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs in the artistic work comprising the Cadbury's Chocolate 'clairs and Cadbury Dairy Milk 'clairs labels/wrappers, by applying similar artistic work on defendants' goods and for restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'clairs on packaged sweets/chocolates and from using trademark deceptively similar thereto. The defendants are also sought to be restrained from infringing the registered trademark of the plaintiffs of A-GLASS-AND-A-HALF for sale of chocolate and other cognate goods. Ancillary reliefs, delivery, damages are also claimed by the plaintiffs.2. Vide ex-parte order dated 1st February, 2006, the defendants were restrained from using the wrappers/labels as of the plaintiffs or deceptively similar thereto. The defendants in spite of service failed to appear and were vide order dated 9th January, 2007 order t...
Ardath Tobacco Company Ltd. Vs. Mr. Munna Bhai and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: LC2009(1)165; 2009(39)PTC208(Del)
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The plaintiff, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of internationally known cigarettes STATE EXPRESS 555, instituted the present suit for restraining the defendants No. 1 to 3, vendors/ stockist of cigarettes at Calcutta and defendants No 4 to 6 the vendors/stockiest of cigarettes at Delhi from dealing in the cigarettes under the label PEACOCK but the packaging and trade dress whereof is identical or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's cigarettes. Besides the defendants No 1 to 6, the plaintiff sought the order in the nature of 'John Doe' as adopted by the American, English, Canadian and Austrian courts and which, Hon'ble Mr Justice Dalveer Bhandari of this Court (as his Lordship then was), in ex parte order dated 14th June, 2002 in IA No. 5628/2002 in CS(OS) 1072/2002 held to be applicable and justified by Indian Courts as well. Thus Ashok Kumars were impleaded as defendants No 7 to 23. 2. Vide ex parte order dated 19th February, 2004, t...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Sh. Harpal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT481; [2009(121)FLR97]; (2010)ILLJ447Del
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this LPA are;(i) That the respondent workman was employed with the appellant as a Security Guard. On 05.06.1991 while returning to his house after discharging his duties, he met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries rendering him unsuitable for employment as security guard, thereafter he proceeded on medical leave. He was referred to DTC medical board where he refused to appear. He was prematurely retired from service w.e.f. 22.02.1994 vide letter dated 18.05.1994. The respondent aggrieved by the aforesaid order raised a Industrial Dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Delhi Administration for issuing directions to the Management for reinstating him in service. Govt. of NCT of Delhi referred the dispute between the respondent and the appellant to the Labor Court registered as ID No. 118/1996;(ii) The same was adjudicated upon by the Presiding Officer, Labor Court VII. Vide order dated 18.02.2002 an award was g...
General Electric Company Vs. Mr. H. Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: LC2009(1)270
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The plaintiff being the registered proprietor of the trademark GENERAL ELECTRIC and GE and the GE monogram in relation to a number of services and goods has sued for restraining the defendants from using the trademark GE LITE. Though the averments in the plaint are that the defendants i.e., defendant No. 3 of which the defendants 1 and 2 are partners / proprietors had applied to the Registrar of Trademark for registration of the mark GE LITE in relation to motorcycle boxes included in class 12, in the prayer paragraph, injunction is claimed for restraining the defendants from dealing in automobile parts and/or textile machines spindles or any other products or services under the trademark GE LITE. This is obviously a typographical error on account of the prayer paragraph having been lifted from the plaint in some other suit filed by the plaintiff relating to textile machines spindles. In the body of the plaint, there is no averment that the defendants are deali...
Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)710; 157(2009)DLT169; [2009]180TAXMAN114(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The substantial question of law which arises in this appeal is:Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the land acquired from the ownership of the appellant was not agricultural land, is perverse.2. The issue which arose before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was with regard to the treatment to be given to the land owned by the assessee company with the future intention of setting up an industry thereon. The said land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Assessing Officer charged capital gains thereon to the extent of Rs. 18,57,932/-. The assessee has throughout maintained that the land in question was land falling within the definition of 'agricultural land' given in Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). It was therefore, contended by the assessee that no capital gains could be charged in respect of the land.3. The land in question which is situated in ...
Capt. Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT386
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner was commissioned as a Short Service Commissioned Officer on 8.3.1997 for a period of five (5) years. The petitioner was attached to the Infantry Unit for a period of three (3) years. The petitioner sustained injuries on 24.4.1998 while returning from his leave and consequent to the injuries sustained was placed in the low medical category on 24.7.1998. The medical treatment of the petitioner continued and it is the case of the petitioner that the injury was attributable to military service. The petitioner was ultimately placed in low medical category (permanent) P1E1.2. The petitioner was reverted from Infantry to the Army Service Corps on 8.3.2000. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for grant of Permanent Commission or in the alternative for extension of Short Service Commission on 14.7.2001, which was recommended by his Commanding Officer. A Selection Board was scheduled for 18/19.10.2001 the result of which was announced on 6.12....
Ms. Jyotika Kumar Vs. Mr. Anil Soni and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT685
Manmohan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 25th February, 2008 passed in CS (OS) No. 277/2004 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed two applications of the Appellant, one under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC and other under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC while disposing of other applications i.e. I.A. No. 6058/07 (under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC), I.A. No. 6057/2007 (under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC), I.A. No. 5382/2007 (under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC) and I.A. No. 2192/2006 (under Section 151 CPC).2. The brief facts of the matter are that the owner of Chauhan Jewellers who are having their offices at Karol Bagh and South Extension were introduced to an Iraqi businessman by Respondent No. 3, Mr. Vijay Khanna.3. The said Chauhan Jewellers dealt with the said Iraqi as a result of which the cheque given by the said Iraqi national to the Chauhan Bros. bounced and there was a dispute between Chauhan Jewellers and their office and Respondent No. 3 i.e...
Shri Maha Singh Vs. Shri Anand Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT674
Manmohan Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6th December, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the appellant/plaintiff's suit was dismissed as being time barred.2. The property in question is 30, Central Market, Community Center, Ashok Vihar, Delhi owned exclusively by the respondent No. 1, who is the younger brother of the appellant/plaintiff.3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant and respondent are real brothers being son of Late Sh. Prithi Singh. The suit for partition and rendition of account in respect of the above mentioned property was filed by the appellant Maha Singh being CS (OS) No. 982/1986 in the second week of May, 1986.4. Case of the Appellanta) Sh. Jamuna Dass was the grandfather of the appellant and respondent, who died on 01.09.1904, leaving behind two sons namely Bhim Singh and Prithi Singh. He was the owner of 400 Bighas of land in Village Iradat Nagar Urf Naya Baas, Delhi. After his death the lan...
Jagat Singh and anr. Vs. Hoshiari Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)154PLR2
Manmohan, J.1. C.M. No. 16567/2006 (Condonation of delay).By the present application the petitioner have sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.P.C).2. The petitioners herein had filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, against the Respondents. However, the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of C.P.C. The said order was challenged by way of an appeal by the petitioners. In the said appeal, a preliminary objection was taken by the Respondents to its maintainability on the ground that no appeal was maintainable by virtue of Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act. The said objection was overruled by the Appellate Court vide its order dated 24th October, 2005.3. On a petition being CM(M) 2834-39/2005 2834-39/2005 filed by the Respondents, learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to allow the said petition vide order dated 9th November, 20...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »