Delhi Court November 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 6 of about 90 results (0.020 seconds)Times Internet Ltd. Vs M/S Belize DomaIn Whois Service Ltd and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in Digest?ORDER1. This is a suit for permanent injunction, damages and delivery of the infringing material. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. entered the field of e-commerce, created a portal named "indatimes.com" and also developed an internet site "http.www.indiatimes.com". The company started offering a wide range of services including internet shopping, online games, etc. It has been alleged in the plaint that the trademark and logo "Indiatimes" was coined by M/s Bennett Coleman & Co. which runs numerous publications such as Times of India, The Economic Times, Navbharat Times, Delhi Times and Bombay Times. It has also been claimed that in the course of time the website "indiatimes.com" acquired an extensive reputation amongst the people and large number of persons started using its services and purchasing goods through it.2. T...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Philip Vs. Umaibhai
Court: Delhi
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.Crl.A.No. 352 of 2002Dated this the 10th day of November, 20101. The appellant is the complaint and the first respondent is the accused in C.C. No. 1727 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Changanacherry (Mobile Court, Kottayam). The above case arose out of a private complaint filed by the appellant against the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2. According to the complainant, the accused has issued a cheque for Rs.50,000/- dt. 26.3.1998 drawn on the Federal Bank, Nedumkunnam in favour of the complainant for discharging the liability due to him. When the above cheque was sent for collection through the account of the complainant in South Indian Bank, Karukachal branch, it has been returned with an endorsement that funds are insufficient in the account of the accused to honour it. On getting intimation regarding dishonour of the cheque, the complainant has caused to issue a notice on ...
Tag this Judgment!Sruthy Sameel, W/O.Sameel A.A. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Delhi
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.W.P(Crl) No.429 of 2010Dated this the 10th day of November, 20101. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce her husband Sameel, a person, aged about 24 years. The petitioner is a young woman, aged 23 years (date of birth - 30.05.1987). Her family originally hails from Trichur. But her father and mother have settled in Bangalore for a long period of time. The petitioner is born and brought up at Bangalore. She has completed her B.Sc. Nursing course. She has not secured employment so far. 2. The alleged detenu Sameel was a student of the B.E degree course at Bangalore. His college was near the college of the petitioner. The petitioner and the alleged detenu met and fell in love. They decided to get married. They have got their marriage registered under the Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act. Their marriage was registered under the Cochin Christian Civil Marriage Act on t...
Tag this Judgment!Savita Gupta Vs. Vxl Heights Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President: 1. The short facts of the case are that, there was an agreement vide allotment letter dated 12.12.2006, between the complainant and the OP Developer, for purchase of a flat bearing No. B-2/104 at VXL Eastern Heights, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad, for a based price Rs. 14,85,000 to be constructed by the OP, the possession of which was to be delivered during the month of October 2008. 2. The complainant has now come to this Commission with a complaint, and his grouse is that despite having paid Rs. 12,62,250, and Rs. 90,000 towards PLC (Preferential Location Charges), to the OP, there has been one year delay in the completion of project, and the OP on 15.9.2009 as a surprise, sent a letter, calling upon the complainant (copy of which is on the record) for taking delivery of the possession on payment of Rs. 8,51,554. Subsequently the OP vide letter dated 30.11.2009, (copy of which is available on record), has cancelled the allotment in favour of the complainant, on t...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. V.M. Gupta and Others Vs. Mr. Shashi Gupta and Others.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest?ORDER1. This is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Late Smt. Kamla Wati, mother of plaintiff No.1, mother-in-law of plaintiff No.2 and grandmother of plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 was the recorded lessee in respect of plot No.16, School Lane, Babar Road, New Delhi. She expired on 21st December, 1984. In her lifetime, she had executed a registered Will dated 09th August, 1994, bequeathing the aforesaid property to her sons, namely, Radhey Mohan Gupta, Inder Mohan Gupta and Virender Mohan Gupta and given ownership rights in respect of different constructed portions of the property individually to them. All the three sons of late Smt. Kamla Wati entered into an agreement/settlement on 22nd January, 1985, with respect to the division of the property on the basis of the Will of their mother. The first floor, v...
Tag this Judgment!Goodhope Vyapaar Pvt Ltd Vs. Param Mitter Coal Movers Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
ORDERDelay in filing of report by the Regional Director is condoned and the report is taken on record.The application is disposed of.This second motion under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act for short) has been filed by Param Mitter Coal Movers Private Limited (transferee company for short) for sanction/approval of the proposed scheme of amalgamation enclosed as annexure P-1. The said scheme envisages amalgamation of Goodhope Vyapaar Private Limited, transferor No.1 company, Jagannath Commodities Private Limited, transferor No.2 company, Komal Tie-Up Private Limited, transferor No.3 company and Omkara Agencies Private Limited, transferor No.4 company with the transferee company as per the scheme. The four transferor companies have their registered office in the State of West Bengal. In the affidavit filed on 8th November, 2010, it is that the transferor company Nos. 1 to 4 had filed a petition before the High Court of Calcutta and vide order dated 27th July, 2010 di...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Hari Prakash Sharma and ors. Vs. Smt. Lado Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NoORDER.1.This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of petitioners seeking quashing of orders dated 7th August, 4th September, and 8th September, 2010, passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi.2. Brief facts as emerges from record are that in year 1997, a suit for partition of property bearing no. 240, Hari Nagar, Ashram, Delhi was filed by respondents no. 1 to 3 against petitioner no. 1 and respondents no. 4 to 11.3. Petitioner no. 1 (since deceased) was proceeded ex-parte in the suit. A preliminary decree was passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi on 15th January 1998 and a Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the spot and partition the suit property.4. On 30th July, 1998, Additional District Judge passed the final decree for partition on the basis of rep...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva Publicity Service and anr Vs. Mrf Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO the Digest?ORDER.1. The matter is listed pursuant to office objection that the principal amount as stipulated in paragraphs 33 and 41 is different than the principal amount mentioned in other paragraphs.2. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Ravi Kant Chaddha with Ms.Pooja Verma, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Ms.Surekha Raman, Advocate for the defendant are present.3. Learned Senior counsel for the plaintiffs states that there appears to be typographical error in paragraphs 33 and 41 of the Judgment dated 2nd July, 2010 as the principal amount in the suit is Rs.58,43,756/- and not Rs.50,43,756/- as mentioned in paragraphs 33 and 41 of the Judgment dated 2nd July, 2010. It is contended that it is on account of typographical error. The learned counsel for the defendant also admits that there are typographical mistakes in paragrap...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chand Mathur Vs. Harish Chand Mathur
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest?ORDER1. This is a suit for declaration. The plaintiffs and defendants are brothers. Property No. B-4/196, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi was owned by late Smt. Shakuntala Devi Mathur, mother of the parties. She expired on 05 th November, 1998, leaving a Will dated 17th September, 1981, which was registered on the same date. The property was bequeathed by the Testator in the following terms:- "(1) On the ground floor of the house situated at B-4/196, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, I am in occupation of a drawing room measuring 13'-101/2" into 11'-10" and one dining room measuring 13'-101/2" into 10'-0", one toilet measuring 8'-C" into 4'-8", one kitchen measuring 8'-C" into 7'-0". The same is bequeathed to my son Shri Harish Chand Mathur. In addition to the above one bedroom measuring 13'-101/2" into 11'-10" with...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Mukesh and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest?ORDER.Allowed subject to all just exceptions.This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 109 days in filing the petition seeking leave to appeal.The applicant has contended that the copy of the judgment dated 14th December, 2009 was applied on 18th March, 2010 which was delivered on 20th March, 2010.The learned counsel has asserted that the certified copy of the judgment was applied after the expiry of period of limitation, however, considering the averments made in the application, there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The applicant has sought condonation of 65 days delay, however, on computation, it is apparent that there is a delay of 109 days in filing the petition for leave to appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances, there appears to be sufficient cause for condoning the ...
Tag this Judgment!