Delhi Court December 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 17 of about 211 results (0.012 seconds)Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Madhu and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?MAC APP. No.155/2005 Page 1 of 15 : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.1.The present appeal is directed against the award dated 18th December, 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 69/2004 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of ` 4,80,000/- along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till realization, with a direction to the appellant to pay the entire award amount within one month. The appellant was, however, held entitled to recover the award amount from the respondents no.4 and 5 herein (the respondents no.1 and 2 in the Claim Petition).2. The facts giving rise to the claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal were that on 25th January, 2003 at about 10.00 p.m., one Rishi Pal was going on his motorcycle bearing No. HR-51-1742 with his daughter Aarti. When he reached ne...
Tag this Judgment!All India Researchers Coordination Committee and ors. Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the 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 in the Digest? YesMANMOHAN, J :1. Present writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of the Regulations dated 11th July, 2009 framed by the University Grants Commission (in short, "UGC") namely, UGC (Minimum qualifications required for the appointment and career advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (3rd Amendment), Regulation, 2009 ( in short, "Regulations 2009"). The relevant portion of the impugned Regulations, 2009 reads as under:-"NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. Provided, however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded Ph.D. Degree in compliance of the "University Grants Commission (minimum st...
Tag this Judgment!Shriom Dalal Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. In both afore-noted writ petitions, writ petitioner is the same i.e. Shriom Dalal. He has engaged two different counsel to WP(C) Nos.1359/2010 & 6660/2010 Page 1 of 7 litigate on his behalf. Whereas Mr.R.K.Gupta is the counsel engaged in WP(C) No.1359/2010, the counsel engaged in WP(C) No.6660/2010 is Mr.Parthiv Goswami. The two writ petitions were listed for disposal today. It may be noted that the previous date of hearing was 30.9.2010.2. Whereas Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate who appears in WP(C) No.1359/2010 is keen to argue the writ petition filed by him and insists the petition to be heard, learned proxy counsel who appears for Mr.Parthiv Goswami, Advocate in WP(C) No.6660/2010 seeks an adjournment. It is apparent that the same writ petitioner is having a personal conflict of interest evidenced by the fact that one counsel engaged by him is keen to argue the writ petition filed and so insists, but the other is not.3. Be that as it may, we have declined to adjourn WP(C) No.6660/2010 fo...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Bling Telecom Pvt Ltd . Vs Micromax Informatics Limited
Court: Delhi
1. The plaintiff in this suit claims a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using BLING as a trademark or corporate name or use of the any mark similar to it for any purpose including in its domain name. Other consequential reliefs are also sought.2. The plaintiff claims to be a design house, manufacturing and selling low end, mid segment, as well as higher end mobile handsets in the Indian market, which was incorporated on 29.07.2009. It is submits that one M.K. Enterprises, its (the plaintiffs') predecessor in interest, had coined and adopted the BLING mark for use of their business of mobile phones and alliedIA Nos. 13938 & 14366/2010 in CS (OS) 2119/2010 Page 1 services, for which trademark registrations had been applied for on 07.07.2009. A copy of the application has been placed on the record during the course of the proceedings. It is contended that the plaintiff has adopted a unique market strategy with two layer distribution and e-retail management in nine major...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Ajay Chaudhary Vs. State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesDIPAK MISRA, CJ1.The fundamental issue that has emerged for consideration in this writ petition that has been instituted on the basis of a letter sent to this Court is whether an accused is entitled to a copy of the First Information Report after it is lodged and if so, what steps are required to be taken to facilitate its availability as the liberty of an individual is inextricably linked with his right to be aware how he has been booked under law and on what allegations. Liberty and freedom are the strongest passion of men and many have WP(Crl.) No.468/2010 Page 1 of 35 sacrificed their lives for the cause of liberty. No one has ever conceived it as an arduous contrivance, a distant notion to be achieved by fortunate moments but as a basic human right. Liberty and life are in wedlock in a civilized societ...
Tag this Judgment!Harish C. BhasIn and anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? 1. The present appeal is filed by the two appellants for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 4th November, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge whereby the suit filed by the respondent no.1 bank for recovery of ` 7,16,505/- and pendente lite and future interest thereon @ 16 1/2 % p.a. has been decreed against the appellants as the principal borrowers and respondents no. 3-5 as their guarantors.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal culled from the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced by them and the submissions made during the course of hearing of this appeal by the counsel for the appellants and respondent no.-1 bank are that on 2nd January,1981 appellant no.1, Harish Chandra Bhasin, as the sole proprietor of appellant no. 2, Raja Ram Bhasin & Co., was sanctioned cash credit fac...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Ifci Ltd. Vs. M/S Koshika Telecom
Court: Delhi
1. The petitioner is a public financial institution which granted loan to the respondent-company for setting up of the telecom business. The two directors of the respondent- company also gave personal guarantees. To secure the loan, the tower and other moveable assets owned by the respondent-company were hypothecated with the petitioner-Corporation WP (C)No.5014/2010 Page 1 of 82. The respondent-company and the guarantors failed to repay the loan and the petitioner thus filed proceedings for recovery of the debts before the DRT by way of OA No.148/2002. This application was allowed on 20.04.2006 and a decree was passed against the respondent-company and its guarantors for a sum of Rs.233,73,92,900-27/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 10 per cent per annum from 19.07.2002 till realization with costs of Rs.1.5 lakhs. The petitioner took out execution proceedings before the Recovery Officer and in pursuance to the order dated 08.12.2007, the properties mentioned in the sche...
Tag this Judgment!Sh.Ram Chander (Deceased) Vs. Sh. Moti Ram
Court: Delhi
G.P. MITTAL, J.1. The Judgment dated 13.2.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge stands assailed before us. It disposed of Suit No.334/1979 filed by late Shri Lal Chand against his two other brothers; Suit No.721/1980 filed by late Shri Ram Chander against his brother Moti Ram; and Suit No.197-A/1979 filed by late Shri Ram Chander against both his brothers. The properties in dispute are Shop No.67-A, Khan Market, New Delhi, Shop No.45-B, Khan Market, New Delhi and House No.B- 2/136, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.2. The learned Single Judge has returned the finding that the Safdarjung Enclave property belongs exclusively to Moti Ram who is the youngest of the three brothers. So far as the two Khan Market Shops are concerned, the conclusion in the FAO(OS) No.4/2004, 8/2004, 2/2004 Page 2 of 7 impugned judgment is that all three brothers namely late Shri Lal Chand, late Shri Ram Chander and late Shri Moti Ram were joint and equal co-owners. The operative part of the judgment is reproduce...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Singh and anr. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. These Appeals assail the composite Judgment dated 6.8.1996 of the learned Single Judge deciding Probate Case Nos.24/1973 and 32/1978 refusing the prayer of the Petitioners to grant probate of the propounded Wills of Late Kundan Singh and Late Polo Singh respectively.2. Probate Case No.24/1973 was filed for grant of probate of Will of Late Kundan Singh and Probate Case No.32/1978 was filed seeking probate of the Will of Late Polo Singh, who was the brother of Late Kundan Singh. The Petitioners in both the cases are common namely S/Shri Hari Singh, Pritam Singh and Amar Singh, however, in Appeal only S/Shri Hari Singh and Pritam Singh are before us as Shri Amar Singh had died on 4.7.1995. An application under Order XXII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) was moved by the surviving Petitioners which was allowed without any opposition from the other side.3. Objections were filed in Probate Case No.24/1973 by the daughter of Late Kundan Singh, namely, Smt. Gurbax...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Simrat Katyal Vs. Shri Varinder Katyal
Court: Delhi
1. Regular First Appeal from the Original Side has been filed by the Appellant challenging the Judgment and Order dated 17 th January, 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 755 of 1992 wherein the suit filed by the Appellant Smt. Simrat Katyal for partition against Varinder Katyal was dismissed.2. Smt. Simrat Katyal, Appellant herein/Plaintiff in Suit No. 755 of 1992 is the widow of late Shri Harinder Katyal. Late Shri Harinder Katyal and Shri Varinder Katyal were the joint owners of property being house No. 21, Bungalow Road, New Delhi. Late Shri Harinder Katyal had married once earlier which had ended in divorce. Later on he got RFA (OS) NO.20/1996 Page 1 of 26 married to the Appellant. He had no children from his first marriage or from the second marriage.3. The brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present appeal are :a. The property in suit -21 Bungalow Road- is a two storey residential house built in 1949 on a 1,250 sq. yd. plot by Lala Bhag...
Tag this Judgment!