Delhi Court August 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.
Khosla Machines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Deepak Verma T/a B.M. Packaging
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2009
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT788; 2009(41)PTC661(Del)
ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.IA Nos. 15833/08 & 2296/091. These two applications are by the defendants. IA No. 15833 of 2008 filed by the defendant under Order XIV Rule 2(2) CPC seeks a direction that the preliminary issue concerning the territorial jurisdiction of this Court should be decided first. The ground urged in the application in IA No. 2296 of 2009 under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is also similar. The prayer here is that the plaint should be directed to be returned for presentation in the proper court.2. The facts leading to the filing of these applications are that the aforementioned suit was filed by the plaintiff alleging infringement of the plaintiffs copyrights in industrial drawings including but not restricted to eight different brands of Auto Banding Machines. According to the plaintiff the defendant joined it in the year 1992 as an employee and was made part of the research and development team. During his employment the defendant acquired complete knowledge regarding developmen...
Morgan Ventures Ltd. Vs. Nepc India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT321
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. These petitions/applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short 'the Act'] have been filed by the petitioners with a prayer that this Court should restrain respondent company and its directors, officers from selling, disposing of, transferring, alienating, encumbering or creating third party rights or interests in the movable/immovable properties and assets of the respondent company including the investments made by the respondent in other companies.2. The notice of the petition was duly served on the respondent, but the respondent did not appear.3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent had entered into agreements dated 7th October, 2003 with the petitioners for designing, supply, installation, testing and commission of Wind Energy Generators. The respondent company was not only to identify appropriate land with suitable wind velocity but was also to give a minimum guarantee of generation of 6,75,000 KwH unit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›