Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 7 of about 197 results (0.022 seconds)Naresh Kumar Vs. Daya Nand
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The applicant has approached this Court against an order whereby an application of the applicant made under Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act for impounding of a General Power of Attorney (GPA) was dismissed by the Trial Court.2. The GPA placed on the record of the Trial Court by respondent is a registered GPA executed on Rs. 100/- stamp paper. The contention of the petitioner before the Trial Court was that since along with GPA, an Agreement to Sell, a Will and a Receipt were also executed, the GPA was for a consideration and therefore was liable to bear stamp duty @ 8% of consideration. Since it was executed only on Rs. 100/- stamp paper, it was liable to be impounded.3. Under Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act, a document can be impounded by a Court if it does not bear the stamp duty which it legally should. In order to show what should be the value of stamp duty, the document is to be read in its entirety and if the GPA shows that it was executed for some consid...
Tag this Judgment!Master Anant Narayan Rai and anr. Vs. Mr. Siddharth Rai and anr.
Court: Delhi
Manmohan Singh, J.1. This order shall dispose of applications filed by the plaintiff being IA No. 10842/2007 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for brevity) and IA No. 7820/2008 under Sections 18, 20 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and IA No. 14008/2008 filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint.2. The plaintiff filed the suit inter alia, seeking partition and rendition of accounts in respect of properties and assets allegedly belonging to the HUF of Late Sh. Kalp Nath Rai. The plaintiff No. 2 is the wife of defendant No. 1 and they were married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 17th January, 2000. Plaintiff No. 1 is the son of plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 1, born on 23rd February, 2001.3. Allegedly, defendant No. 1 has treated the plaintiffs with extreme cruelty, both physical and mental. He has assaulted, abused and tortured the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 1 is aged about...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Satpal Singh Sethi Vs. Mrs. Gursev Kaur (Through L.Rs.) and ors.
Court: Delhi
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for cancellation of sale deeds, declaration of title and possession in respect of property No. H-7, N.D.S.E.-I, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the suit property'). The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3rd May, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the appellant's suit was dismissed.2. Facts of the case leading to the filing of the suit by the appellant herein (hereinafter to be referred as 'the plaintiff) have been noticed by the trial Court in paras No. 3 to 5 of its judgment and the same are re-produced below:3. DLF Construction (P) Ltd. sold a plot measuring 319 sq. Yards bearing plot No. H-7, NDSE Part I, New Delhi to Sh. Rattan Singh by sale deed dated 27.12.1958. Sh. Rattan Singh sold the plot to Sh. Bihari Lal on 17.1.59 by way of sale deed. Sh. Bihari Lal further sold the property to Sh. Raghubir Singh by sale deed dt. 15.6.1962 then Raghubir S...
Tag this Judgment!Pran Nath Vs. State
Court: Delhi
V.K. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment dated 3rd February, 2006 and Order on Sentence dated 07th February November 2006, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 326 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years. He was further directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to the injured under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The compensation was directed to be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. On 17th February, 2004, the injured Rakesh was admitted in Hindu Rao Hospital with burn injuries on his face, hands and thighs. On 19th February, 2004, his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. In his statement to the IO, the complainant/injured Rakesh alleged that the appellant Pran Nath was having animosity with him as some of his customers had started taking milk from him (the complainant). He further stated that on 17th February, 2004, at about 4.45 am when he was going...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Mukesh Khadaria Trading as Aggarwal Udyog Vs. Dcm Shriram Consoli ...
Court: Delhi
Madan B. Lokur, A.C.J.1. The question for our consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was right in granting an injunction restraining the Appellants from using the trademark 'Shriram' while marketing their plaster of Paris and thereby passing off their goods as those of the Respondent. In our opinion, the answer must be in the affirmative. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals and confirm the injunction granted by the learned Single Judge.2. These appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 23rd October, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No. 910/2009 and CS(OS) No. 1035/2009. Both the suits were essentially treated by the learned Single Judge as actions for passing off. Admittedly, the broad facts in both the appeals are similar and therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common decision.3. The Respondent (DCM Shriram Consolidated Limited - for short DCM) is the registered proprietor of the trademark 'Shriram' and 'Shri...
Tag this Judgment!C.D. Securities Services Network Ltd. Vs. Employees Stated Insurance C ...
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order passed by learned ESI Judge whereby he directed the petitioner to deposit 50 per cent of the demanded amount with the Corporation in terms of Section 75(2)B of ESI Act.2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that an order under Section 45-A of ESI Act was passed by Deputy Director of ESI Corporation against the petitioner raising a demand of Rs. 2,44,24,609/- holding that the petitioner failed to produce the records and, therefore, ESI has power to make assessment under Section 45A of the Act. The reasons given by Deputy Director for arriving at this conclusion are as under:a) Inspection of the unit was conducted from 11/92 to 12/93 on 08/02/94. No ledgers were produced on the plea that the same are lying with the Chartered Accountant.b) Inspection of the unit was conducted from 01/94 to 07/95 on 26/09/95. No ledgers were produced on the plea that the same are lying with ...
Tag this Judgment!Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. Vs. H.E. Industries and ors.
Court: Delhi
Manmohan Singh, J.1. The plaintiff filed IA No. 5352/2008 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for brevity) for an interim injunction restraining the defendants, their family members, promoters, officers, agents etc. from using the word/name/mark 'JOHNSON' in relation to electric water heaters (including instant geysers) in any manner as such use would result in infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark and passing off of the defendants' goods as those of the plaintiff's.2. The brief facts of the case are that the mark 'JOHNSON' was registered on 14.09.1960 vide registration No. 197998-B in class 11 in the name of the predecessors in interest i.e. M/s. Jain Industries of the plaintiff with regard to hot plates, toasters and water boilers.3. The predecessors in interest M/s. Jain Industries was a partnership firm which was dissolved on 01.04.1967 and on the same date a new partnership was constituted which continued business under the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Prempal and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The present petition by Prempal (Petitioner No. 1), his wife, Munni Devi (Petitioner No. 2) and his four children (Petitioners 3 to 6) claims compensation for the undue harassment that Prempal and his family have been subject to at the hands of the Delhi Police.The judgment of the learned ASJ2. The basis for the claim is a judgment dated 28th September 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), New Delhi in SC No. 29 of 2002 (State v. Prempal) acquitting the Petitioner of the offence under Section 376 IPC. In the process, the learned ASJ observed:This case is a glaring example that the poor in this country have no say and if they cry for justice, their cries fall on deaf ears. They are made to suffer and pay by their life and liberty, when they complain against police officials.3. After narrating the long history of the suffering undergone by Prempal, at the hands of the police for about 15 years in a number of false cases, including the one in which he was...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh C. JaIn Vs. Manoj JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 11th August, 2008 whereby applications of the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 and under Order I Rule 10 CPC were dismissed with cost.2. The petitioner filed a suit claiming damages against Sh. Manoj Jain, M/s. Arora Trading Company, Satya Electronics and Ashoka Electricals alleging violation of his trade mark 'SHREE' on packaging material and advertisement. During pendency of the petition, the petitioner made application for impleadment of Sh. Satish Kumar Arora, proprietor of 'Jai Mata Industries' on the ground that Sh. Satish Kumar Arora was manufacturing duplicate bulbs under the trade mark 'SHREE' by running Jai Mata Industries which was owned by Sh. Satish Kumar Arora. It was also alleged that Sh. Satish Kumar Arora was brother of proprietor of M/s. Arora Trading Company, who was already a party to the suit.3. Every infringement is a separate cause of action. There is no ban on brothers doing...
Tag this Judgment!Dawar Rubber Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner challenges the Award dated 5.6.2003, passed by the Sole Arbitrator. The Award came to be passed on account of disputes between the parties under the contract wherein the petitioner was supplier of shoes and the respondent/Union of India was the buyer.2. The counsel for the petitioner has pressed his objections only with respect to Claims (A), (B) and (C) as decided by the Arbitrator.3. Claim (A) was the claim of the petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,91,163/- on the ground that the payment with respect to the subject invoice numbered 579/6 dated 11.10.93 and relatable RR No. 657239 dated 11.10.1993 was not released to the petitioner/claimant. The Arbitrator has found that this payment was in fact made to the petitioner and the Arbitrator accepted the certificate as filed by the respondent/Union of India of its bankers that payment of the goods pertaining to ...
Tag this Judgment!