Delhi Court May 2009 Judgments

Shri Satish Chandra Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 164(2009)DLT172

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Sh. Satish Chandra Mishra seeks directions for setting aside rejection Order dated 23.7.2001, denying the Swatantrata Sainik Pension to the petitioner, passed by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner has also sought directions against the respondents for grant of pension as per SSS Pension Scheme 1980.2. The facts as set out in the petition are as under:The petitioner is a senior citizen. He had participated in Quit India Movement i.e. also known by August Movement, 1942 and due to participation in that movement a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and his colleagues as G.R. No. 75/42 dated 20.08.42 titled as Emperor v. Hira Singh and Ors. and the petitioner was named accused in the above mentioned case, but the petitioner was not arrested at the place of occurrence and absconded. An NBW was issued against the petitioner, despite that the petitioner was not arrested. Proceedings under Sections 82-83 Cr.P...

Cement Corp. of India Vs. Shri Shriram Chaurasia and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ161Del

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. This order shall dispose of C.M. No. 5803/2008 in W.P. (C) 6927/2007, CM No. 5659/2008 in W.P. (C) No. 6970/2007, CM 5658/2008 in W.P. (C) No. 6998/2007 and CM 5806/2008 in W.P. (C) No. 6954/2007.2. By way of these applications filed under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act the applicants/respondents seek grant of full back wages till final disposal of the petition.3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is ultra vires on account of the fact that the Tribunal had exceeded to the terms of the reference. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in terms of the reference the respondents sought their regularization, but exceeding the terms of the reference the Tribunal gave direction for the reinstatement of the respondents along with 25% backwages. Counsel further submitted that services of the respondents were terminated on account of the termination of the contract of the contractor as the respondents were employees ...

Wingsfield Knitwear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 161(2009)DLT125

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act'), the petitioner had made a prayer that this Court should pass an ex parte injunction restraining respondents, its agents, employees from alienating or interfering or dealing with the rented premises of ground floor and basement of M-26, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner entered into a lease deed with respondents Deepak Kumar and Company through its proprietor Mr. Deepak Kumar for a period of three years in respect of premises namely half portion of ground floor and half portion of basement of Shop No. 26, Greater Kailash Part-I. The rest half portion of the shop belonged to brother of the respondent and the petitioner entered into a OMP 153/2009 Wingsfield Knitwear Pvt. Ltd. v. Deepak Kumar and Ors. separate lease deed with brother of respondent. As per the lease deed fo...

Neeru Walia Vs. Inderbir Singh Uppal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 160(2009)DLT55; (2009)155PLR43

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with a prayer that the mandate of Arbitrator viz. Mr. Ghan Shyam Sunder Arora be terminated.2. The petitioner had first moved an application under Section 12 and 13 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act before the Arbitrator raising following issues before the Arbitrator:1. That despite two hearings which had been held, this Forum has failed to disclose in writing that he has acted as broker for and on behalf of the Claimant in the transaction in dispute and hence this Forum is not an independent and impartial Arbitrator.2. That this Forum has signed the Agreements which were executed between the parties on dated. 3rd May, 2006 and on 14th July, 2006 as a witness on the instance of the petitioner.3. That the Agreements are not valid and Respondent kept her right reserved to raise the objection in this regard at a proper stage.4. That this Forum...

Amar Singh Chawal Wala Vs. Shree Vardhman Rice and Genl. Mills

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 159(2009)DLT267; 2009(40)PTC417(Del)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 1st March 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing IA No. 6222 of 1989 filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant in Suit No. 2247 of 1989).2. The aforementioned suit was filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants/Respondents from infringing the Plaintiff's registered trade marks in the device of QILLA, the words GOLDEN QILLA (word per se), LAL QILLA CHAPP (word per se), LAL QILLA (word and device mark) and NEEL QILLA in relation to the goods for which they were registered, i.e., rice. A decree of permanent injunction was also sought to restrain the Defendants/Respondents from processing, selling or offering for sale or dealing in rice or any other cognate or allied goods under the trade mark HARA QILLA or the device of QILLA or any mark or device deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's aforementioned registered trade marks.3. In this appeal the parties are referr...

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Punit Goenka and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(40)PTC622(Del)

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge passed on 30.4.2009. At the very commencement of the Order, the learned Single Judge has firstly granted the request made on behalf of the Defendants for filing the Written Statement as well as the Reply to the Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' hereinafter) within two weeks. Secondly, having done so, and briefly considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has ordered the Defendant to deposit the outstanding or unpaid amount of royalty due for the previous year, together with Rupees Four crores, as a security amount for the continued usage of the copyrighted work. Thirdly, the learned Single Judge has ordered for the maintenance of accounts separating the usage of the works involved in the proceedings pending before him. It is this Order which has been assailed before us. A perusal of the Memorandum of App...

Akbar and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4199

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2007, the appellants, Abdul Hamid @ Millu, Akbar, Afsar @ Umar Daraj and Arasleen @ Mursaleen @ Sanno have been convicted for the offence of having murdered Mohd. Kazim @ Babbu Pehelwan (hereinafter referred to as the 'Deceased'), for which offence they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine in sum of Rs. 5,000/- each; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. Case of the prosecution was that in the night of 03.02.2001 the appellants went to the house of the deceased and that a dispute arose between appellant Arasleen and the deceased over a sum of money. Thereafter all the appellants fired shots at the deceased from their respective pistols and fled from the place of the incident after causing the death of the deceased. The wife and sons of the deceased namely, Haseen Bano PW-1, Safdar PW-2 and Akbar PW-3, had witnessed the incident.3. Needless to state the case of the p...

Woodfun Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 160(2009)DLT339

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This petition has been made by the petitioner under Section 34 read with Sections 11, 38 and 39 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') with a prayer that this Court should terminate the mandate of the Arbitrator Mr. C.B. Lal on the ground that the learned Arbitrator had asked the petitioner to pay to him half of the amount of Rs. 2,58,700/-, as the interim bill of his fee.2. The arbitrator in this case was to be appointed by respondent Union of India, who initially appointed Shri Y.P.C. Dange as arbitrator. After sometime Mr. Dange resigned and in his place Shri A.K. Singhal was appointed as the arbitrator who entered upon the reference and proceeded with the case till completion of pleadings. Thereafter, he also resigned and Mr. C.B. Lal, the present arbitrator was appointed. Mr. C.B. Lal fixed hearing of the matter on 31st July 2006 and on that date asked each of the parties to deposit half of his bill of professional fees and co...

Goenka Institute of Education and Research Vs. Anjani Kumar Goenka and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(40)PTC393(Del)

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. The dispute in this appeal centres around the use of the expression 'Goenka' as a trademark and/or trade name. The respondents claim exclusive ownership/right to use the word 'Goenka', whether per se or with other words or initials, as their trademark/trade name with respect to their educational institutions and which is disputed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge agreed with the respondents/plaintiffs and allowed their injunction application. Hence, this appeal filed by the defendants/appellant. Reference to trade mark hereinafter, in the facts of the present case, will include reference to trade name also wherever the circumstances so require.2. The appellant claims the right to use the word 'Goenka' on the basis of three basic contentions:(i) From the year 2000 they have been using 'Goenka' for their school 'Goenka Public School' and hence are owners being prior users of the trade mark. In fact the appellant is running since the year 1995 'Mohini Devi ...

Rakesh Pandey Vs. Director of Education and Others

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): By this OA, Shri Rakesh Pandey, working as Assistant Teacher in the School of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), the Applicant herein, has impugned the order dated 3.8.2007 (Annexure A1) issued by Respondent-1, in which large number of Assistant Teachers were promoted to the post of TGT/TGT (MIL) but he did not find place. The Applicants case is that though he is eligible for promotion as TGT (Maths) as per Recruitment Rules, he has not been promoted and his representation dated 6.9.2007 (Annexure A-V) remains to be responded by Respodent-1. Hence, he is before this Tribunal with the following prayers:- (i) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to promote the Applicant to the post of TGT (Maths) in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 plus usual allowances as admissible under the rules from time to time and the promotion be deemed to have been made retrospectively from the date from which the Applicant was due for pro...