Delhi Court December 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 3 of about 211 results (0.021 seconds)State Vs. Rahul .
Court: Delhi
This is an application by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition seeking leave to appeal. The applicant has contended that after the judgment dated 18th February, 2010 was passed by the Trial Court acquitting the respondent, the public prosecutor and chief prosecutor recommended the case for filing of appeal which was done after obtaining the true copy of the judgment. The applicant contended that the matter was considered by various authorities including Law Secretary, Govt. of NCT and the Law Department, which gave approval for filing the petition seeking leave to appeal where after the matter was entrusted to the standing counsel of the Delhi Govt. which resulted into a delay of 154 days in filing the petition seeking leave to appeal. The applicant has relied on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107 and State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, 2005 (3) SCC 752 holding that sufficient cause should be considered with...
Tag this Judgment!Shekhar Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
These three appeals have been filed by the three accused-appellants challenging their conviction and punishment awarded to them by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.50 of 2006. Vide judgment dated 17th September,2007 accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code('IPC' in short) and accused-appellant Mohd. Akhtar @ Rahul has been additionally held guilty under Sections 411 and 397 IPC also and vide order dated 24th September,2007 all the three accused-appellants were awarded 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- each with a default stipulation that they shall have to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one year in case of default in payment of fine. For the conviction under Section 411 IPC accused-appellant Mohd. Akhtar @ Rahul was separately awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years and his substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run consecutive...
Tag this Judgment!Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. Mr. Sanajay Chadha and anr
Court: Delhi
1. This is a suit for permanent injunction, grant of damages and delivery up of infringing material. The plaintiff was incorporated under the name Ever Ready Company (India) Ltd. on June 20, 1934 under the Companies Act, 1913. The name of the plaintiff-company was changed from time to time and was last changed to Eveready Industries India Limited on April 24, 1995. The plaintiff-company is engaged mainly in the business of manufacturing and trading of dry cell batteries, re-chargeable batteries, flash lights, compact fluorescent lamps, general service lamps, insect repellants and packet tea. The plaintiff-company has 46% share in dry cell batteries and 80% in flash lights in the organized sector. The carbon zinc batteries manufactured by the plaintiff are sold under the mark EVEREADY since 1905 when its predecessor-in-title National Carbon Company (India) Limited came into existence. The plaintiff is the registered owner of the trademark EVEREADY and EVEREADY (device) and it is using t...
Tag this Judgment!Gianender and ors. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. OA No.2096/2009 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 8.12.2009 passed by the Tribunal.2. The grievance of the petitioners can be put in two compartments.3. The first grievance pertains to the petitioners not being promoted as Income Tax Officer on the basis of marks obtained by them by considering their entitlement for the unreserved vacant posts in the promotee quota for Income Tax Officers. The second grievance pertains to persons junior to the petitioners being promoted post 2008 and as per the petitioners who had less marks than them. 4. The petitioners have lost on both counts before the Tribunal.5. The petitioners were appointed as Inspectors in the Income Tax Department on the strength of they being members of a Scheduled Caste. They do not dispute that a limited departmental qualifying examination has to be cleared by all candidates working as Inspectors to be promoted as Income Tax Inspector. Parties are not at variance that the examination ...
Tag this Judgment!Hill Elliott and Co. Ltd. Vs Shri Bhupinder Singh
Court: Delhi
1. Appellant takes exception to the order dated 26th October, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Suit (OS) No.2400/2008 whereby IA No.9073/2010 under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was allowed and suit for possession filed by the Respondent was decreed.2. We have heard Shri G.L. Rawal senior counsel for the Appellant threadbare.3. Before we go into merits of the Appeal, we may sum-up essential facts necessary for disposal of the Appeal.4. The Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) is owner of Property No.S-323, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. He had let out the ground floor, first floor, garage with servant quarter and lawn attached to the said construction to the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as Hill Elliott) through a registered Lease Deed dated 16.10.1982. The tenure of the lease was for a period of four years expiring on 12.10.1986. According to the Plaintiff no registered Lease Deed was executed thereafter and thus Hill Ell...
Tag this Judgment!Glaxo Group Ltd.and anr Vs. Mr.S.D.Garg and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. This is a suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts. Plaintiff No.1 Glaxo Group Ltd. is a company incorporated in United Kingdom, whereas plaintiff No.2 GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Both the plaintiffs are members of GlaxoSmithKline Groups of Companies of which GlaxoSmithKline plc. is the parent company. The plaintiffs are engaged in manufacturing and marketing a wide range of products including pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations throughout the world and are one of the largest pharmaceutical and healthcare companies and had worldwide sales of 21.44 billion in the year 2000.2. The trademark BETNOVATE is registered in India in the name of plaintiff No.1 in class 5 since 5th December, 1963 in respect of pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary substances and is an invented word having no dictionary meaning and connoting exclusively the goods of the plaintiffs. The trademark is stated to be registered i...
Tag this Judgment!N.L. Manchanda Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
These two criminal revision petitions have been filed by Mr. N. L. Manchanda and Mr. Ashok Shetty for setting aside Order dated 13th November, 2007 directing framing of charges against the petitioners under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC, for short) r/w Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act, for short). Substantive charge has also been directed to be framed against the petitioner-Mr. N. L. Manchanda under Section 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of the P.C. Act.2. The petitions raise three contentions. Petitioners have questioned the impugned Order on the point of charge, on merits. Secondly, sanction under Section 6 of the Act has been challenged on the ground that it has not been issued by the competent authority and lastly, sanction under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short) has been challenged on the ground that it has not been ...
Tag this Judgment!Uoi Thr. Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment Govt. of India Vs ...
Court: Delhi
1. The Directorate General of Employment and Training (hereinafter referred to as "DGET") is an attached office of Ministry of Labour. The organizational set up of DGET consists of three principal wings; namely, Directorate of Training, Directorate of Employment and Secretariat Wing.2. The hierarchical structure of Directorate of Employment is as follows: - Director of Employment Exchanges Additional Director of Employment Exchanges Joint Director of Employment Exchanges Deputy Director of Employment Exchanges Assistant Director of Employment Exchanges.3. Prior to the year 1996, there were 10 posts of Deputy Director of Employment Exchanges in the pay scale of `3000- 4500, 3 posts of Joint Director of Employment Exchanges in the pay scale of `3000-5000 and 1 post of Additional Director of Employment Exchanges in the pay scale of `3700-5000. As evident from the afore-noted hierarchical structure, the post of Deputy Director of Employment Exchanges is the feeder post to the post of Joint...
Tag this Judgment!Alok Gupta Vs. M/S Rubfila International Limited
Court: Delhi
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.1351521/- and rendition of accounts and a Counter Claim for recovery of Rs 32,42,628/- The plaintiff, who is carrying business under the name and style of M/s Alok Enterprises claims that he was appointed as an agent by the defendant for the sale of its products in northern India and the defendant had agreed to pay a commission of 1% on the total sales made by him directly or made by the defendant on the orders procured through him, along with reimbursement of telephone and office expenses. It is further alleged that Smt. Renu Gupta, wife of the plaintiff was also appointed as an officer of the defendant company on a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month and the defendant had taken the premises of the plaintiff on rent of Rs.5,000/- per month for using it as its office. It is also alleged that all office expenses including the salary of Smt. Renu Gupta was paid by the plaintiff and was added to the account of the defendant, which its officers used to conf...
Tag this Judgment!Tenxc Wireless Inc. and anr. Vs. Andrew Llc and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. The Appellants assail the order dated 30th November, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the ex- parte injunction granted by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 4th October, 2010 was suspended/vacated and the case was fixed for completion of the pleadings of the parties with direction to the Respondents to file their written statements within 30 days from the date of the said order.2. A suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered Indian Patent Number 240893 for an invention entitled "Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency", delivery up, rendition of account of profits and damages was filed against Respondent No.1. The matter came up for hearing on the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code). On 4th October, 2010, the learned Single Judge ordered impleadment of Defendants No.2 and 3 (Respondents No.2 & 3 herein) as it was represented on behalf of the Appellants that Respondent No.1 was in the proce...
Tag this Judgment!