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.
Man Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT489
Manmohan Singh, J.1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises the questions relating to validity of tender process floated by Public Sector undertakings and calls upon this Court to examine the process followed by the Respondents and to adjudicate upon the same while exercising powers of Judicial review available under the constitution and thereby seeking interference of this Court by way of appropriate writ.2. The writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus and certiorari or any other appropriate direction seeking the production of the records of tender for Dahej Vijaipur Pipeline Upgradation project and declaring the action of the respondents in inviting the fresh financial bids vide letter dated 8.6.2009, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and to quash the letter bearing No. GAIL/ND/C&P;/PRJ/DVPL-II/08-41/01, dated 08.06.2009, and consequently to direct the respondents to process the case of p...
B. Barun Melsungen Ag and ors. Vs. Mr. Mohinder Paul and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(40)PTC593(Del)
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. Plaintiffs filed this suit for permanent injunction against defendants since defendants had brought out a product in the market as MEDIFLON SAFETY. It is alleged that this product of the defendants infringes the plaintiffs' Patent No. 210062. The claim of plaintiffs patent No. 210062, as given in the plaint and in the documents filed mainly concerns claim No. 21 of the patent application filed by plaintiffs on 18th August 1998 and granted on 17th September 2007. It is described as under:Claim 21: An IV catheter assembly comprising:a needle having a needle shaft and a needle tip, the needle shaft comprising a portion of increased diameter proximal from the needle tip;. a housing having a cavity formed therein;. a needle guard disposed within the cavity, the needle guard comprising a proximal wall having first and second end portions and an opening therein, through which the needle shaft extends, and a resilient arm extending distally from the first end of...
Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. R.C. Gupta and Bros.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT356
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This appeal/petition has been preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') against an order of the Arbitrator dated 27.2.2006 passed on an interim application under Section 17 of the Act.2. The facts in nutshell are that during the pendency of dispute before the learned Arbitrator, petitioner herein had come out with a scheme in December, 2005 called Late Payment Surcharge (LPSC) Waiver Scheme. Under the scheme, those consumers who were having disputes and whose claims were under litigation were given an opportunity to apply to the petitioner and avail the scheme of the petitioner for waiver of late payment surcharge under the scheme. As per the scheme, the consumer was to pay full principal dues and get 100% waiver of LPSC without prejudice to the pending litigation. Option was also given to the consumer that the consumer may withdraw the cases pending before the Court/Legal forums and pay full amount as per the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Db (India) Securities Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Del)466; [2009]318ITR26(Delhi); [2010]187TAXMAN161(Delhi)
1. The admitted facts are that the assessee/respondent herein is a member of the Delhi Stock Exchange and is carrying on the business of shares and stock broking along with the allied activities such as broker/sub-broker, underwriters to new issues of shares, debentures and securities of all kinds, brokers and fixed deposit of companies, trading in shares, investment consultants, etc. The assessee had purchased shares of M/s. Mannu Finlease Ltd. in January and February 1996 on behalf of and on instructions from its sub-broker M/s. Glory Securities Ltd. Total value of these shares purchased by the assessee was Rs. 1,06,10,247/- at an average price of Rs. 55/- per share. The said sub-broker had made payment to the extent of Rs. 64 lacs only. As remaining amount of Rs. 41,37,881/- was not paid, the assessee did not deliver those shares to the sub-broker. However, in the said year, brokerage was shown as income in the Income-Tax Return, which was assessed as well. Since balance payment was...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rampur Engg. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2009
Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN171(Delhi)
ORDER1. In the relevant Income-tax Return filed by the assessee in the assessment year 1985-86, it had claimed a deduction of purported consultancy fee of Rs. 14,45,927 allegedly paid to M/s. Turcon India (P.) Ltd. It was claimed that this amount was paid as consultancy fee to the aforesaid firm for getting some contracts from NTPC. The Assessing Authority in his assessment order disallowed the aforesaid expenditure on the ground that the assessee could not furnish sufficient evidence to justify the aforesaid expenditure for a genuine business cause and had not discharged the obligation placed on it as to the genuineness of the transaction. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were initiated and orders were passed by the Assessing Authority imposing penalty of Rs. 11,48,852 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Appeal of the assessee against that order filed to the CIT (Appeals) was dismissed vide its order dated 31-3-2005, however, on further appeal of the assessee before th...
Microsoft Corporation Vs. Mr. I. Sadiq Batcha and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2009
Reported in: 2009(40)PTC477(Del)
Manmohan Singh, J.1. The defendants are ex-parte. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of Copyrights, Registered Trademarks, Passing off, Rendition of Accounts of Profits, delivery up etc. The Plaintiff, Microsoft Corporation is the Company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, USA.2. As per plaint, the Plaintiff has been carrying on business in the field of development of computer programs (software) and the manufacture and sale of software, pre-recorded onto tapes, disks, diskettes, cartridges, cassettes with read-only memories such as compact discs, related user manuals and instructional guides. The Plaintiff, in addition to the above, is also involved in the development, manufacture and sale of computer hardware, principally the Mouse, Keyboard and Joystick, among other hardware accessories. Documentation, namely reference user, instructional and general utilities manuals and data sheets for computer hardwa...
Mrs. Anjali Sood and ors. Vs. Director of Education and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2009
Reported in: 161(2009)DLT214
Vipin Sanghi, J. 1. By this judgment I purpose to dispose of writ petition WP(C) No. 4426-32/2006 4426-32/2006 along with writ petition WP(C) No. 555/07. WP(C) No. 4426-32/2006 4426-32/2006 had originally been filed by seven petitioners to seek the quashing of the notice of retrenchment dated 30.12.2005 issued by the Management Committee, National Public School, Bela Road as being contrary to the provisions of Delhi School Education Act (the Act) and Rule 46 of Delhi School Education Rules (the Rules) and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the management of National Public School (NPS) to absorb the petitioners in any of the other two schools run by it, viz. NPS, Darya Ganj or NPS Kalindi vide order dated 11.12.2006 petitioner No. 5 was deleted from the array of petitioners.2. On the other hand WP (C) No. 555/2007 has been filed by the Managing Committee, National Public School, Bela Road for issuance of writ of certiorari to seek the quashing of the direction given by Delhi ...
Shakuntala Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2009
Reported in: 2010ACJ1; 162(2009)DLT264
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this writ proceeding, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to the Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi (first respondent, hereafter 'GNCTD') and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (second respondent, hereafter 'MCD') for the payment of compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-, alleging that negligence and dereliction of public duty on their part resulted in untimely death of her husband, Sh. Sita Ram (hereafter 'the deceased'). 2. The brief facts are that the deceased, a fruit vendor, carried on his trade from a roadside 'Redi/' 'Thela' (hand-cart). On the fateful day the deceased was selling fruits when two fighting bulls came by. In the ensuing melee he fell, was entangled between the fighting bulls and was badly mauled. He was immediately shifted to the GTB Hospital where he remained under treatment till 23.1.05, when he finally succumbed to his injuries and breathed his last. The postmortem report revealed that the cause of death was shoc...
K.C. Mehra Vs. Satish Mehra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2009
Reported in: 161(2009)DLT361
Vipin Sanghi, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (The Act) to challenge the award dated 24.12.1998 made by the sole arbitrator respondent No. 1 Sh. Satish Mehra. The petitioner Sh. K.C. Mehra, respondent No. 1-Sh. Satish Mehra, respondent No. 2 Sh. P.N. Mehra and respondent No. 7 Sh. P.R. Malhotra are sons of Late Sh. Dinanath Mehra. Respondent No. 3 is the wife of Sh. P.N. Mehra, respondent No. 2. Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 namely Sh. Pawan Mehra, Sh. Sanjay Mehra and Sh. Sandeep Mehra are the sons of Late Sh. A.N. Mehra, who was the son of Sh. Dinanath Mehra. The petitioner states that Late Sh. Dinanath Mehra who had seven sons partitioned the property which he possessed among his family members by a duly registered partition deed dated 26.08.1955 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Delhi on 09.01.1957. Late Sh. Dinanath Mehra expired in the year 1961. In 1981, Sh. R.N. Mehra, i.e. respondent No. 2, filed...
Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2009
Reported in: 161(2009)DLT413
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner, in these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns the decision of the Union Department of Agriculture, dated 5-11-2008, rejecting its appeal under Section 10 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 ('the Act') against the decision of the Registration Committee to granting for Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG to the third respondent, (hereafter 'Jaishree') in its 293rd meeting held o 26.09.2008.2. The facts necessary for deciding the case are that with the Act was brought into force with express the object of regulating the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals, and for matters connected with it. Any prospective manufacturer or importer of any insecticide/pesticide in India is primarily governed by the regime of this Act. One of the areas of focus of the Act, is on import of insecticides and formulations, which it strives to regulate; the concern i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »