Delhi Court March 2009 Judgments

Ram Kishan Singh Vs. Mcd and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,000 besides refund of Rs. 8,027 towards sewerage charges and Rs. 500 as cost of litigationvide order dated 1.1.2009 passed by the District Forum, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The allegations of the appellant, in brief, are that he purchased one plot measuring 120 sq. yards. As per requirement under Section 149 of MCD Act, appellant got prepared the construction plan which was approved by the MCD and paid Rs. 1,098 on 22.9.1970 as development charges along with water and sewerage charges. The map is available at P-143/C of case file and payment of development charges at P-139/C, but he has again received one demand note of Rs. 8,027 in the year 2000 and he had paid amount on 8.5.2000. The receipt is at P-153/C of case file. He alleges this double payment on the part of the respondent and prays for appropriate relief. As against this, the respondent admitted that payment was mad...

T.N. Trehan Vs. Sadbhawna Co-op. Group H. Society

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Admittedly appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 3,64,000 on 2.12.1997 with the respondent-Society for allotment of a flat by the respondent-Society. In spite of having made several representations and requests to various authorities and lastly in January 2004 for allotment of the flat, no flat was allotted. However, ultimately the said amount was returned in January 2004 with interest which was duly accepted by the appellant. However, the appellant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation and interest. 2.Vide impugned order dated 5th September, 2007 the District Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation. 3. In view of the travails suffered by the appellant for such a long time for getting the refund after about 7 years of deposit because of the mismanagement of the respondent-Society as it is alleged that some inquiry was conducted by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, we deem that ...

Adobe Systems, Inc. and anr. Vs. Mr. P. Bhoominathan and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2009(2)277; 2009(39)PTC658(Del)

Manmohan Singh, J.1. The present suit has been filed by two independent companies i.e. Adobe Systems Inc, USA, plaintiff No. 1 and M/s. Microsoft Corporation, USA, Plaintiff No. 2.for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of copyrights, trademarks, passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts, damages etc. and the same is pending before this Court. Mr. Anand Banerjee is the Constituted Attorney of the plaintiffs by virtue of a Letter of Authority in his favour and a copy of the same is exhibited as Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 of the Evidence Affidavit.2. It is averred in the plaint that the Plaintiff No. 1, Adobe Systems Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as 'Abode') and Plaintiff No. 2, Microsoft Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Microsoft') are the companies organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, USA having its principal office at 345 San Jose, Park Avenue, CA 95110-2704, USA and One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052-6399, USA respectively.3...

Vatika Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vatika Grand

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(40)PTC111(Del)

Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order I shall dispose of the application being I.A. No. 4329/08 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint.2. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for permanent injunction restraining passing off, damages, rendition of accounts etc against the defendant in the month of May 2002. Issues in the matter have been framed on 8th August 2007. The matter is now ripe for plaintiff's evidence.3. It is averred in the application that during the pendency of the suit, the trade mark Vatika was registered in favour of Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. on 11th May 2006 bearing No. 1043034 in Class 16 and by virtue of the amendment made in the trade mark when the application was pending, the said trade mark was registered in the name of Vatika Landbase Pvt. Ltd. and the said name was changed to Vatika Ltd who is the now the registered proprietor of the trademark Vatika. Meanwhile on 20th February, 2008 Vatika Ltd assigned the said trademark...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Usha (India) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]184TAXMAN83(Delhi)

1. The appellant/department is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 9-6-2005 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal partly allowing the assessee's appeal for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1993-94.2. The controversy related to the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the total income of the assessee on account of alleged Benami concerns from which the assessee was stated to have earned income. It has been noticed that in the impugned order that for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91, the same additions were made. The CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 1989-90 set aside such addition and for the assessment year 1990-91, the addition was deleted. A finding was arrived at that except for one of the companies, the rest of the companies were not Benami of the assessee-company and that facts relating to the companies had been jumbled up. The impugned order also records the admitted position that there was no second appeal by the Department for these two assessment years. The ...

Union of India Vs. Maytas Properties Ltd.

Court: Company Law Board CLB Delhi

Reported in: 2009(96)SCL342(CLB-NEWDELHI)

1. The Union of India has filed this instant petition under section 388B/397/398/408 of the Companies Act seeking various reliefs in respect of M/s. Maytas Properties Limited. The company is a closely-held public company having only 7 members and 3 directors. The main business of the company is development of residential properties in various towns. This petition was mentioned seeking for ex parte interim reliefs to restrain the respondents 2 to 4 from acting as directors, respondents 2 to 5 from dealing with their personal properties and for allowing the Central Government to appoint ten nominee directors to function as directors. Since the company had filed a caveat, I directed the petitioner to serve copies of the petition on all the respondents and kept the matter for the hearing on 24-2-2009 to decide on the interim reliefs. During the intervening period, certain shareholders and certain lenders to the company had also filed applications for impleadment/intervention. 2. I heard th...

Union of India Vs. Maytas Infra Ltd.

Court: Company Law Board CLB Delhi

Reported in: 2010(97)SCL318(CLB-NEWDELHI)

1. The Union of India has filed this instant petition under sections 388B/397/398 and 408 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of M/s. Maytas Infra Limited and has sought for a declaration that none of the directors shall be eligible for appointment as a director in any other company in terms of section 388B and that for authorizing the Central Government to appoint ten nominee directors on the Board under section 408 of the Act. By way of ex parte interim relief, the Central Government has sought for restraining respondents 2 to 6 from acting as directors, for restraining the respondents from dealing with the assets of the company and also for allowing the Central Government to appoint ten nominee directors during the pendency of the petition. Since the company had filed a caveat, notices were sent to the company as well as other respondents and the arguments on interim relief were heard on 26-2-2009 and on 27-2-2009. 2. The facts of the case...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Delhi School Teachers Assn.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 158(2009)DLT132

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Union of India (appellant No. 1), the Lt. Governor (appellant No. 2) and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (appellant No. 3) against the order dated 12.11.1991 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 1162A of 1989 and I.A. 2397/1991, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed off the objections to an arbitral award dated 20.03.1989 preferred by respondent No. 2 DDA. 2. The main plea raised by the appellant Nos. 2 & 3 is that at no stage of the proceedings before the learned arbitrator, the appellant Nos. 2 & 3 had been impleaded as party respondents. The only parties who were impleaded as respondents were Union of India and the DDA and, accordingly the award, which has led to the decree would not be executable against the appellant Nos. 2 & 3. 3. The award in question is an exparte award. Despite service, none appeared either for the Union of India or for the DDA in the arbitral proceedings. Though the Land & ...

Karan Promoters (P) Ltd. Vs. the Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 161(2009)DLT353

Reva Khetrapal, J. 1. The present suit has been brought by the plaintiff M/s. Karan Promoters Pvt. Ltd. against the defendants for the recovery of Rs. 42,66,771/- with pendente lite and future interest.2. The facts as asserted in the plaint are within a narrow compass. The plaintiff company has been doing the business of liaison and property consultants. The defendant No. 1 company was the owner of the building Great Eastern Plaza at 2A, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant No. 1 had engaged its services to find out tenants for the entire building. Accordingly, the plaintiff gave a proposal to one M/s. Ericsson Communications Pvt. Ltd. whereby an area of 70000 sq. ft. was offered by the plaintiff to M/s. Ericsson on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- per sq. ft, which included the maintenance charges of the said building. In response to the said offer, discussions were held between the plaintiff and M/s. Ericsson and ultimately the deal was finalized with th...

D. Babu Vs. Bhartia Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)156PLR40

ORDERG.S. Sistani, J.1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Cr.P.C.'), petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal complaint titled as 'Bhartia Industries Limited v. D. Babu' filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House.2. The facts of the case, as per the petition are as under.3. The petitioner was appointed as an authorized systems integrator of the products of respondent. As per Clause 3.2(c) of the agreement (to remain in force till 31.3.2007) entered into between the parties, no order of the petitioner was to be considered for execution by the respondent till the time it was accompanied by a cheque of the ordered amount.4. On 24.07.2006, the petitioner placed an order worth Rs. 34,880/- and issued a blank cheque numbered 006795 for the said order on the instruction of the respondent that it was the usua...