Delhi Court September 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.
Master Ryan Thru Its Mother Mrs. Ridhima Juneja Vs. P.N. Juneja and So ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2009
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT14
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This order will dispose of I.A. No. 12605/2007 (of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2), I.A. No. 920/2008 (of the first, third and fourth defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4) and I.A. No. 8225/2009 (of the third and fourth defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4).2. The first plaintiff is the minor son of the second plaintiff (hereafter, 'Ridhima') and the second defendant (hereafter, 'Deven'). The marriage between Ridhima and Deven was solemnized on 31.01.2004 and the first plaintiff was born in November, 2005. Ridhima alleges that she and her minor child were abused and assaulted in her matrimonial home by her In-laws and husband i.e. the defendants, and after one such incident on 14.07.2007 she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home. She filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the 2005 Act) before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 16.08.2007, alleging that she was thrown out of her matrimonial home,...
Punjab Tractors Limited Vs. International Tractors Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC311(Del)
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. Application of the defendants under Section 340 of the Cr.PC for proceeding against Mr. R.K. Manrao & Mr. G.S. Rihal of the plaintiff is for consideration.2. The plaintiff instituted this suit on the pleas:a. That it is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of agricultural tractors etc.;b. Tractors manufactured by plaintiff are based on technology and knowhow developed originally be Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute (CMERI) under the Council for Scientific & Industrial Research (CISR);c. In terms of the arrangement between CMERI and the Govt. of India, the patent design, copyright and all other intellectual property rights in the tractor developed by CMERI came to be vested in the National Research & Development Corporation of India (NRDCI);d. That NRDCI granted to Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (PSIDCL) licenses to use the aforesaid technology developed by CMERI including the patent rights which CMERI possesses w...
Liberty Footwear Company Vs. Force Footwear Company and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC474(Del)
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. Heard. With the consent of the parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.2. This Order will dispose of both the writ petitions filed by the petitioner herein against the Order dated 19th August, 2008 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter referred to as IPAB, for short) refusing to take on record the additional documents filed by the petitioner along with the affidavit by way of evidence. Learned IPAB has observed that the application for taking on record additional documents does not disclose sufficient ground for extending the time to file documents. It has been recorded as under:.Even if any plausible reason or ground is given justifying for the condonation of delay, there is no provision which empowers this Appellate Board to condone such delay.3. IPAB has been constituted under Section 83 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for short) and is a quasi judicial tribunal which exercises powe...
Balachandra Bhikaji Nalwade Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2009
Reported in: 170(2009)DLT251
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. Mr. B.B. Nalwade, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for issue of Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Order dated 12th September, 2008 passed by the National Environment Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as NEAA, for short) dismissing his appeal under Section 11(1) of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 ((hereinafter referred to as Appellate Act, for short). The petitioner also seeks quashing of the Environment Clearance Order dated 17th May, 2007 granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (hereinafter referred to as MOEF, for short) permitting JSW Energy Ltd. (Ratnagiri) Ltd- respondent no.3 herein to set up and construct 1200 MW (4 x 300 MW) coal base Thermal Power Station (hereinafter referred to as TPP, for short) at Jaigarh, Maharashtra.2. The petitioner states that he is a resident of Ganpatipule Taluka, Distt. Ratnagiri which is a project affected area and earns his livelihood mainly from man...
Mohd. Akbar Butt Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2009
Reported in: 165(2009)DLT1213
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The appellant (Mohd. Akbar Butt) had been accused with two others, for having committed offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act.). They were tried together in Sessions Case No.82/2000. The Additional Sessions Judge, by a judgment dated 03.06.2003, found the appellant to be guilty of having committed the offences under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the said Act. The two co-accused were also found guilty, but only for the offence under Section 6 of the said Act. By an order of sentence dated 07.07.2003, the appellant and the co-accused were sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and two years rigorous imprisonment in default thereof, for the offence under Section 6 of the said Act. Additionally, the appellant was also sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and three years rigorous imprisonment in default thereof, in respect of the offences...
Shri Mangal SaIn Mittal Vs. Ppa Impex Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2009
Reported in: 173(2009)DLT358
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This order will dispose of the plaintiff's applications for decree on admission (IA 3384/2008) and under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2, Civil Procedure Code (CPC), being IA 3385/2008.2. The plaintiff claims to be owner of suit property, i.e S-6, Green Park Extension. It was let out, though four separate registered lease deeds dated 6-6-2002, covering four portions of the suit property. The property was sold, through a registered sale deed, to Mrs. Raj Rani Sethi, on 7-6-2002; the plaintiff contends having entered into an agreement to purchase the property from Mrs. Sethi, on 27-9-2002, for a consideration of Rs. 49,05,000/-. It is submitted that the said vendor delivered constructive possession of the premises to the plaintiff, on 1-9-2002; it is alleged that a letter of attornment was sent to the defendant company, inspite of which the latter did not pay the arrears of rent, or pay any lease rent, as agreed, to the plaintiff. The premises, contends the plaintiff, were ...
Gujral Security Services Vs. D.S.C. Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2009
Reported in: 170(2009)DLT249
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this application/petition under Section 8 & 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner has sought appointment of Sole Independent Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties.2. Brief facts are that the petitioner was rendering security services to the respondent and was providing security guards. One of the conditions of the agreement for providing security guards was that in case of any theft taking place in the respondent company, the value of the stolen goods shall be recovered from the petitioner. A theft took place in respondent's premises and respondent in terms of the contract recovered an amount of Rs. 4 lac which was equal to the value of the stolen articles. The petitioner however, disputed its liability for the theft and submitted that the investigation of petitioner revealed that the Paver operators of the Rajokari Plant confessed for the act and raising of the debit note for Rs. 4 lac was illegal and excessiv...
Naval Gent Maritime Limited Vs. Shivnath Rai HarnaraIn (i) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2009
Reported in: 174(2009)DLT391
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The Execution Petitioner/Decree Holder filed this petition/application for enforcement of foreign award dated 22.1.2001 under Part II Chapter I of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Along with the petition, the petitioner has filed a certified copy of the award, a certified true copy of the Charter Party Agreement containing arbitration clause and a certified copy of the notice issued to the respondent at the behest of Counsel for the Petitioner seeking remittance of the amount in terms of the award and an affidavit of the Solicitor of the petitioner to the fact that no appeal has been preferred against the award in the country of its making i.e. England and the limitation for filing appeal against the award expired on 19th February, 2001. The Judgment Debtor/respondent put appearance in the Court on 5th November, 2007 when the matter was taken up by the Court. The respondent sought time to file response to the Execution Petition of the petitioner howe...
K.D. Aggarwal Vs. District and Session Judge and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2009
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT234
Sunil Gaur, J.1. Petitioner K.D. Aggarwal, was working as Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. S.M. Aggawal, Additional District Judge, Delhi. On 20th September, 1994, aforesaid court reported about missing of five execution files as detailed in the Enquiry Report (Annexure P-12). On 12th May, 1997, petitioner was charge sheeted for the loss of the above said execution files. In the Enquiry held against the petitioner three witnesses had deposed, whereas the petitioner himself had deposed in his defence. On 26th May, 2001, Enquiry Officer submitted her Report (Annexure P-12) holding the petitioner guilty of gross negligence and carelessness. The Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the District and Session Judge, Delhi, vide Order of 17th May, 2004, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner while holding as under:- Being an Ahlmad the charged official should have acted very carefully, cautiously and diligently but he has not taken care of these attributes resulting in the loss of...
Sparsh Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maharishi Ayurveda Products Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2009
Reported in: 174(2009)DLT411
ORDER NO.DATEAMOUNT(Rs.)DRAWN ON53125104.08.200325,00,000/-IndusInd Bank, Preet Vihar, Delhi53125205.08.200325,00,000/-----do----53125306.08.200325,00,000/-----do----53125407.08.200325,00,000/-----do----50461330.12.200450,00,000/-----do----50461430.12.200450,00,000/-----do----50461530.12.200450,00,000/-----do----50461630.12.200450,00,000/-----do----50461730.12.200450,00,000/-----do----50461830.12.200450,00,000/-----do----TOTAL4,00,00,000/-New Delhi 30th Day of December 2004 Executants For Maharishi Ayurveda Corp. Pvt. Ltd. WITNESS 1. Santosh SinghS/o late Sh. B.B. SinghC-32, Sec 41, Noida 2. Yugantar SaxenaS/o Sh. Saran Saxena493-B-8 Vasundhara Encl.Delhi-9637. Interestingly, the defendant admits this entire document without reservation. The said document categorically states that the consideration of Rs. 4 crores was paid 'as full and final payment towards the sale of entire industrial built up property bearing No. A-14, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi'. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »