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.
Aryavart Overseas (P.) Ltd. Vs. Kay Aar Biscuits (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2009
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT488
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff, a private limited company carrying on business in marketing biscuits, sues for damages in the sum of Rs. 39,74,344.25 P (Rupees thirty Nine lakhs Seventy four thousand hundred and forty and paise twenty five only).2. The plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and carries on business inter alia of selling and marketing biscuits and other food products in various part of India. It is averred that in 1978 the defendant (hereafter 'Kay Aar') approached it (the plaintiff) at New Delhi requesting assistance to it (the defendant) for setting up a factory to manufacture biscuits, and also for its sale. The plaintiff agreed; this led to the parties entering into a rate contract on the 8th of June 1978. The original of that agreement was filed on record of suit No. 5 of 1980 and marked as Exhibit P-1; a certified copy of the agreement together with its annexures is filed in this suit. It is produced, and marked as E...
Mahesh Chand Vs. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2009
Reported in: 168(2009)DLT193
Manmohan, J.1. Present letters patent appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 20th November, 2008 whereby appellant-petitioner's writ petition being W.P.(C) 17866/2005 challenging the Award dated 20th May, 2005 passed by Labour Court-VII, Delhi has been dismissed.2. Learned Single Judge held that in view of the ample material on record the Labour Court's finding that there exists no relationship of employee and employer between appellant-petitioner and respondent- Management, is unexceptionable and could not be said to be based on no evidence so as to warrant any interference by a writ court.3. Mr. Jay Salva, learned Counsel for appellant-petitioner submitted that Labour Court and learned Single Judge failed to appreciate not only the true import of Ex. WW1/4, Ex. WW1/5 and Ex. WW1/6 but also the evidence led by respondent-Management as well as the order sheets dated 30th March, 2009 and 29th November, 2006 wherein respondent-Management had admitted that appellant-petition...
Smt. Har Naraini Devi and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT663
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Through this writ petition, the petitioners seek that Clause (a) of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'), be declared unconstitutional, allegedly being ultravires Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioners herein are the widow and daughter of Late Shri Ishwar Singh (died in 1985) s/o Late Shri Mukhtiar Singh (died on 6.6.97). Late Shri Ishwar Singh also had two sons, who are Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.3. Late Shri Mukhtiar Singh was the bhumidhar in respect of certain lands which were governed by the said Act. As per the provisions of Section 50 of the said Act, on his death, his bhumidhari interest in the said holdings devolved upon his grandsons, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Section 50 of the said Act is reproduced hereunder:50. General order of succession from males. - Subject to the provisions of Section 48 and 52, when a Bhumidhar or Asami being a male dies, his interest in his hold...
Cinni Foundation Vs. Raj Kumar Sah and Sons and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC320(Del)
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this order, it is proposed to decide IA Nos. 5726/2009 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff), 6870/2009 (under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order I Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendants) and 6871/2009 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendants).2. The plaintiff M/s. Cinni Foundation through its Managing Trustee Chandra Kumar Sah has filed the aforesaid action under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, inter alia, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringement of its trade mark 'CINNI' and from passing off its goods and business as that of the plaintiff besides delivery up of all the impugned finished and unfinished materials bearing the violative trademark.3. The plaintiff, which is a private trust established under the Deed of Trust dated 05.11.2000, duly registered with the Sub-Registrar Varanasi (U.P.), is engaged in the ...
Eskay Electronics (i) Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. P.K. Khera, Superintenden ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(244)ELT519(Del)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. The captioned petitions, which are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short the Cr.P.C.), can be disposed of by a common judgment in view of the fact that they arise out of the same set of circumstances.2. Crl. M.C. No. 364/2007, which is preferred by the Central Excise Collectorate, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Department), is directed against the order dated 09.10.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi (in short the 'ACMM'), whereby he has closed the pre-charge evidence being led by the department. On the other hand, the Crl. M.C. No. 1832/2008, which has been preferred by the Eskay Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd., its Managing Director, Mr. M.S. Kathuria and its Production Manager, Mr.. N.P. Kathuria (hereinafter individually referred to as accused No. 1., accused No. 2. and accused No. 3. respectively and collectively referred as accused.), have preferred the peti...
Vishvajeet Sharma and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC484(Del)
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ('CrPC.') seeks the quashing of the Complaint No. 55/1/ 2005 (titled Spaceage Multi Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Darshan Singh and Ors.) and FIR No. 52 of 2006 dated 12th January 2006 registered at Police Station (PS) Saraswati Vihar under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and all proceedings consequent thereto.2. The background to the filing of this petition is that the Petitioners are partners of the firm M/s. Deemark Healthcare having its office at New Delhi. The firm deals with the various healthcare products such as exercisers and walkers. It is stated that the Petitioners adopted the trade marks with the word 'Walker'. Their main trade mark is DEEMARK and the word 'Walker' is stated to be descriptive and generic for the walking exercise machines as it is to convey an idea that the use of the machine is a substitute for walking.3. It is further stated that two notices dated 17th August 2005 and 14th ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2009
Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Del)133
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. This appeal was admitted on the following question of law:Whether Commissioner of Income Tax correctly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 in revising the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. In order to appreciate as to under what circumstances, the question of law has arisen for our consideration, it would be necessary to take stock of the facts as they appear on the records of the case.3. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') IS a company engaged in the business of manufacturing certain auto parts and has been supplying the same to various car manufactures in India. It has filed its return for the Assessment Year 2001-02 declaring an income of Rs. 9,57,53,430/-. The return was taken up for scrutiny and ultimately assessed under provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On that basis, the assessment order was framed on 06.02.2003.4. The Commissioner of Income Tax...
Pioneer Nuts and Bolts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Goodwill Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2009
Reported in: 169(2009)DLT209; 2009(41)PTC362(Del)
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25th April, 2008 passed by the learned single Judge rejecting I.A. No. 780/2007 filed by the appellant seeking an ad interim injunction against the Defendant infringing and passing off its registered trademark 'TUFF' and 'TUFF LABEL'.2. The parties are referred to by their status in the suit, i.e. the Appellant is referred to as the Plaintiff and the Respondent as the Defendant.3. The Plaintiff states that it adopted the trademarks 'TUFF' and 'TUFF LABEL' on 1st June 1996 in relation to nuts, bolts, screws and studs. Its application for registration of the mark 'TUFF' in Class-6 goods was made on 11th February 1998, advertized in the Trademarks Journal No. MEGA-1 on 25th August, 2003 and Registration (under No. 791109) was granted in respect of the mark 'TUFF' on 14th May, 2004 effective 11th February 1998. The Plaintiff's application for registration of the mark 'TUFF LABEL' was advertised in the...
Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2009
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT148
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. This order shall dispose of the Writ petitions bearing Nos. 3850/1992 and 3887/1993. WPC No. 3850/1992 is taken as the lead case.2. By way of these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 28/5/1992 in WPC No. 3850/1992 and order dated 17/5/1993 in WPC No. 3887/1993 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi under Section 14B of the Employee's Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.3. The brief conspectus of the facts relevant for deciding the present petitions is as under:The petitioner were required to pay P.F. and P.P.F. Contributions, Insurance Fund Contributions and Administrative charges payable under Sections 6, 6A and 6C of the Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and under the provisions of EPF Scheme, 1952 and EDLI Scheme, 1976. Since the employers failed to pay the said contributions and administrative charges due as required by law for...
Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Del)526; [2010]320ITR430(Delhi)
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. Three issues are urged by the appellant M/s. Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The same are as under:(i) The first issue pertains to the addition of Rs. 1,68,71,980/- on account of valuation of closing stock by not accepting the change in the method of valuation of closing stock of levy sugar to lower of cost or average realisable value of levy and free sale sugar to lower of cost or realizable value.(ii) Disallowance of deduction with respect to interest payable amounting to Rs. 21,15,615/- in terms of Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 43B(d) of the Act.(iii) Whether the liability to pay interest on the excess realization for levy sugar pursuant to the order of the Allahabad High Court was a contingent liability or a crystallized liability?2. Each of the aforesaid issues have been held against the appellant concurrently by all the three authorities below, namely, the Assessing Officer, CIT(Appeals) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »