Delhi Court July 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.
Ms. Madhushree Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)225CTR(Del)1; [2009]317ITR107(Delhi); [2009]183TAXMAN100(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J1. The captioned writ petitions lay challenge to the provisions of Section 271(1B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the =Act) on the ground that it is ultra vires the Constitution of India. The impugned provision which was brought on to the statute book by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from (w.r.e.f.) 01.04.1989, has resulted in a grievance in so far as the petitioners/assessees are concerned, in as much as, apropos to its insertion in the Act, the salutary requirement of the Assessing Officer arriving at his own satisfaction during the course of assessment proceedings that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars before initiating penalty proceedings has been done away, by a deeming fiction encapsulated therein. This, in short, is the kernel of the controversy before us. As is evident on a bare reading of the provisions of Section 271(1B) of the Act that the deeming fictio...
Ramesh Kumar @ Rameshwar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ85
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence of having murdered his wife.2. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the wife of the appellant was brutally murdered in her matrimonial house in the intervening night of 30th and 31st March 1997; the fact that she was murdered is evidenced by the post-mortem report Ex.PW-10/A as per which the deceased had received 8 injuries, of which, injury No. 1 was caused by a hard blunt force and the remaining were caused by a sharp edged weapon. Further, it was not disputed by learned Counsel for the appellant that the deceased died due to injury No. 4 which had cut the neck of the deceased and that the said injury by itself was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. It was further admitted that there is no evidence of any forced entry into the house or of the presence of any other family member in the house when the wife of the appellant was murdered.3. To put it...
Mahesh Gupta and anr. Vs. Tej Singh Yadav and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC109(Del)
Manmohan Singh, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs, inter alia, seeking injunction against the defendants restraining them from infringing the registered patent No. 199716 of the plaintiff, copyright in the product brochure as well as for delivery of the infringing materials, rendition of account and damages.2. The plaintiff No. 1 is the Managing Director of plaintiff No. 2 company. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff No. 1 introduced the revolutionary reverse osmosis (RO) based domestic water purifiers for the first time in India in 1999 and obtained registered Patent No. 199716. The copy of the said patent No. 199716 is proved and is Exhibit PW1/1. The suit patent has also been tested at the renowned Shriram Institute for Industrial Research and Spectro Analytical Labs Pvt. Ltd. These water purifier system were/are being sold by the plaintiff No. 2 under the mark KENT Mineral RO.3. It is submitted that the plaintiff No. 1 developed a system and apparatu...
Novartis Ag Vs. Crest Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: LC2010(1)44; 2009(41)PTC57(Del)
Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order I shall dispose of this application being IA No. 5495/2008 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC.2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining passing of, damages and delivery up etc.Plaintiff's case3. The plaintiff is manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical specialities and is in the business for the past 100 years. The plaintiff is the proprietor of the trademark SECEF., a medicinal formulation containing cefisime which is sold by the plaintiff in capsule and suspension form.4. The trade mark SECEF, as per the plaintiff, was adopted in the year 1998 and is a coined word and is a distinctive trade mark. The said trade mark, according to the plaintiff, was available in many countries since late 1980s and early 1990s and in India since May 2002. There was also a discussion in various pharmaceutical well known trade journals in the year 1988.5. The plaintiff's application for reg...
Chanchal JaIn and ors. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: 165(2009)DLT95; [2009]95SCL31(Delhi)
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioners herein are distributors, 'who sell mutual funds to investors'. Earlier mutual funds were loading entry charges of upto 2 1/2 % on any investment made in a new mutual fund. Part thereof was passed on to the distributor towards his commission.2. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI, for short), respondent No. 1 herein, has now issued a new circular/guidelines dated 30th June, 2009 under which the mutual funds are barred from charging entry load.The relevant portion of the circular dated 30th June, 2009 reads as under:a) There shall be no entry load for all mutual fund schemes.b) The scheme application forms shall carry a suitable disclosure to the effect that the upfront commission to distributors will be paid by the investor directly to the distributor, based on his assessment of various factors including the service rendered by the distributor.c) Of the exit load or CDSC charged to the investor, a maximum of 1% of the redemption proceeds shal...
Shri Ram Het Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2009
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT103
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The workman, Shri Ram Het (petitioner herein) has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the impugned award dated 23.02.2007 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator directing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (respondent herein) to consider the case of workman for regularisation keeping in mind his seniority from 22.05.1999 as per its policy of regularisation.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Muster Roll Beldar by the respondent w.e.f. 26.07.1986. His services were terminated by the respondent w.e.f 30.01.1988 because of his involvement in a murder case. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute with regard to his termination from the service of the respondent which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court and was registered as I.D. No. 258/1995. During the pendency of I.D. No. 258/1995, the petitioner was acquitted in the murder cas...
Mahesh Chand Tyagi Vs. Delhi Jal Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2009
Reported in: 165(2009)DLT47
ORDER1. Admit. By consent of the parties the appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The appellant herein challenges the impugned judgment and order dated 08.04.2009 passed in WP (C) No. 8183/2005 by the learned single Judge.3. The appellant is an ex-serviceman and has served the army for 15 years. He was discharged from the army in 1980. On 30.10.1984, he was appointed as Security Guard by the 'Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking' which was then a unit of Delhi Municipal Corporation and is now an independent Board called 'Delhi Jal Board'.4. The conditions of service of the employees of the Delhi Jal Board are governed by the Delhi Municipal Service Regulations, 1959. By virtue the Regulations, the provisions of Fundamental Rules, Supplementary Rules, Govt. of India instructions, orders & directions are applicable to the employees of Delhi Jal Board.5. As stated above, the appellant was appointed on the post of Security Guard (Chowkidar) on 30.10.1984 on temporary basis and h...
Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secretary Finance, Ministry of Financ ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT194
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The question for our consideration is the scope and extent of judicial review available to the Central Administrative Tribunal in respect of the findings recorded in a departmental enquiry. On the facts of the case before us, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the report of the enquiry officer and the view taken by the concerned disciplinary authority.2. At the relevant time, the Respondent (Mr. S.C. Jain) was working as an Assistant Director of Inspection (Intelligence) in the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut. In that capacity, he arranged a search operation, sometime in 1982, on the premises owned by one Mansa Ram. The operation disclosed concealment of income and non-payment of taxes thereon by Mansa Ram.3. According to Mansa Ram, Mr. Jain had later demanded and received an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from him to decide the case to his (Mansa Ram's) satisfaction. However, since Mr. Jain did not 'satisf...
Sagar Apartment Flat Owners Society Vs. Sequoia Const. P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT1
S. Muralidhar, J.1. These applications seek the restoration of CS(OS) No. 3967 of 1992 which by an order dated 9th May 2007 was dismissed as withdrawn pursuant to an application being IA No. 5397 of 2007 filed by Plaintiff No. 1.2. IA No. 9293/2009 under Order I Rule 8(4), Order XXIII Rule 1(5) and Section 151 CPC is by seven persons viz., Mr. G.P. Barooah (resident of Flat No. 1C), Mrs. Reena Sehgal (resident of Flat 6D), Mr. Ashok Arora (resident of Flat 4C), Mr. R.K. Singal (resident of Flat 7C), Mr. B.P.S. Puri (resident of Flat 8C), Mrs. Asha Chandra (resident of Flat 9B) and Mr. K.K. Gupta (resident of Flat 10C) of Sagar Apartments, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. It may be mentioned that IA No. 9294 of 2007 by Mr. Rajender Jaina who is owner of Flat-P, Sagar Apartments, seeks the same relief. IA No. 6780 of 2007 seeking similar relief is by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (NIACL.) owner of Flat Nos. 12A and 13C of Sagar Apartments. By an order dated 6th March 2007 NIACL was impleade...
infosys Technologies Limited Vs. Marwadi Inforys Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC622(Del)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their assigns, employees, servants agents, dealers or representatives and any others acting on their behalf, from filing any trademark application for the mark 'INFOSYS' or 'INFY' ('the mark') in isolation or conjunction with any other mark or name and from passing off their goods and/or services and/or business by manufacturing, marketing, selling, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in goods/services under the trade mark 'INFOSYS', or otherwise using the expression INFOSYS or INFY, whether used in isolation or in conjunction with any other word/expression. They also seek further restraint of the defendants from infringing the registered trade mark Nos. 475269, 475267 and 484837 and subsequent registrations along with an order for delivery up of all goods, stationery including letterheads and business cards, dies, blocks or any other articles bearing the impugned trade mark...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »