Delhi Court May 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 12 of about 157 results (0.023 seconds)John Wiley and Sons Inc. and ors. Vs. International Book Store and anr ...
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This suit is for permanent injunction by the plaintiffs seeking to restrain the defendants from infringing their copyright. The plaintiffs have also made a claim for damages and rendition of accounts. An application by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the CPC alleging that the defendants had willfully disobeying and violating the of this Court dated 01.12.2008 is also pending. By the said order the defendants and their agents and assigns were restrained from advertising, offering for sale/exporting any publications of the plaintiffs to the countries outside the territories specified on the books published by the plaintiffs and from removing and concealing the notices appearing on the said books, till the disposal of this application.2. According to the suit averments the first, third and fifth plaintiffs are corporations incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of New York, USA and the second plaintiff is exclusive li...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sunder Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The short facts of the case are that the car of the complainant, which was insured with the OP No. 1 New India Assurance from 9.3.2004 to 8.3.2005, met with an accident on 14.5.2004 at Bahadurgarh Road, Delhi, the intimation of which was given on 20.6.2004 to the Insurance Company. The Surveyor appointed by the respondent OP after receiving the claim papers and the estimate submitted by the complainant before the OP, assessed the loss at Rs. 53,742.50 and submitted the report before OP Insurance Company, which repudiated the claim on 17.1.2005 of the complainant saying that the investigation report of the Surveyor reveals that the actual place, time and date of the accident and the name of the driver involved in the accident were not correctly stated and in the column of the claim form in this regard was left blank. The investigation unravels that no such accident has taken place on the place shown and that the doctor on his examination had stated...
Tag this Judgment!Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. NitIn Jain
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The short facts of the case are that the complainant had a mobile connection from OP No. 1 Bharti Cellular Limited. On receipt of bill relating to March 2005 to 24th April, 2005, he found following mistakes therein: (i) The service of Hello Tunes being available @ 30 remained not activated from 17th February to 2nd March. On complaint he was told that the charges for the same would be waived in the next bill. (ii) Customer care service of the OP told that complainant was having 100 SMS free for next three months stating from 2nd March but the bill reveals that complainant was being charged Rs. 1.50 per SMS for 64 SMS. (iii) Complainant asked Customer Care to activate ONE service named mobile to mobile at the tariff of Rs. 25 and thereafter at a tariff Re. 1 for every call to any GPRS number. The bill however showed charges @ Rs. 2 per call. (iv) Even the next bill for 24th April, 2005 reveals many errors and the OP is levying such unjustified char...
Tag this Judgment!Harjinder Singh Vs. American Express Banking Corporation and Others
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
M.L. Sahni, Member (Oral): 1. As per allegations made by the complainant, who is non-resident Indian, he had purchased Travellers Cheques worth USD 29,000 of USD 100 denomination each on 10.8.1998 at Michigan, USA of M/s. American Express (OP No. 1) issued by M/s. First Federal of Michigan (OP No. 4). He came to India (when? It is not disclosed) and got encashed USD 1000 on 31.8.1998 at Central Bank of India. 2. On 17.9.1998, complainants brief case containing USD 28,000 and other belongings, was stolen at New Delhi Railway Station. He lodged FIR with the Police at the Railway Station and also informed OP No. 2 M/s. ABN Amro Bank Ltd., requesting them to ensure that lost TCs were not encashed by unauthorized person. Vide letter dated 27.10.1998 M/s. American Express International (OP No. 3) declined to refund the amount against the lost TCs without assigning any reason. On further inquiries complainant learnt that stolen TCs were encashed by OP No. 2 and other Banks in India between De...
Tag this Judgment!Brig. (Retd.) R.P. Singh Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Present case W.P. (C) No. 18136 of 2006 was filed in Honble Delhi High Court in 2006 which was transferred to this Tribunal on its formation on 15.01.2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was commissioned on 12th June, 1969. During his service he qualified in several professional courses and also acquired various academic qualifications. He held challenging Command and Staff assignments during his tenure. Petitioner was promoted as a Brigadier and was appointed as Commander, 35, Infantry Brigade in Delhi on 09.03.1998. He relinquished his Command on 19.10.2000. He was selected to attend the National Defence Course w.e.f. January, 2001. 3. In June, 2001 General Officer Commanding, 2 Corps ordered a court of inquiry to ascertain irregularities in the Canteen (CSD) of 35, Infantry Brigade accounts as alleged by the Chartered Accountants. The court of inquiry was finalised on 13th December, 2001 which recommended disciplinary action against the petitioner. 4. P...
Tag this Judgment!Mahipal Singh Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This petition was received by post and respondents were asked to file the reply. Respondents filed the reply wherein they stated that applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 14.11.1961 and discharged locally under item III (v) of table annexed to Rule 13 of Army Rule 1954 being inefficient on 29.05.1972. He has also earned one red ink entry during his 10 years and 197 days qualifying service. It is pointed out that the minimum qualifying service of earning service pension in case of Personal Below Officer Rank is 15 years but the applicant had put in only 10 years and 197 days of service, therefore, he is not entitled to service pension. It is also pointed out that applicant has already been paid the terminal benefits as admissible to him like final settlement of accounts amounting to Rs.69.60, AFPP Fund amounting to Rs.2500.45 and death cum retirement gratuity amounting to Rs.1312.50. It is also submitted that applicant was discharged way back in the year 1972 and no records a...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Balvinder Kaur Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant had filed a writ petition (civil) No. 2524/1996 in the Honble Delhi High Court. The same was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal on 22/09/2009. In the present application the applicant has raised preliminary issue with regards to jurisdiction and filed an application dated 24/02/10 requesting that her case be returned to the Delhi High Court since the Armed Forces Tribunal has no jurisdiction over MNS officers. 2. We have heard both parties and perused the record. At the outset the applicant contends that the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) had no jurisdiction over the case as MNS officers are not included in Sub Section 2 (i) of the Army Act 1950. MNS officers are governed by the Indian Military Nursing Service Ordinance 1943 (Ordinance 1943). This prescribes that only for two offences, namely absence without leave and violation of good order and military discipline above are applicable to MNS officers. Rule 6 of the Ordinance 1943 generally re-iterates the punishme...
Tag this Judgment!Ex Nk Chander Bhan Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The present petition has been transferred from Honble Delhi High Court to this Tribunal on its formation. 2. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that he has been invalided out from service by the Medical Board on account of disease psoriasis vulgaris and his claim for 20% disability pension was rejected by the PCDA (P) Allahabad, hence he filed the present petition challenging the same. 3. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of present petition are that petitioner was enrolled in regular Army as combatant soldier on 29.04.1994 after being found physically and medically fit as per Regulation 383, Regulation for Medical Services Armed forces, 1982. He performed his duty to the best of his ability and served at different locations. While posted to high attitude area of Sikkim, he started to have some health problems. He was admitted and treated in Military Hospital for the disease psoriasis vulgaris but could not be cured. Therefore, the Medical Board recommended that...
Tag this Judgment!Wg. Cdr. M.S. Mander (15034-h) F(P) Presently Lodged in District Jail, ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Five persons, including the appellant, who was the first accused, were tried by the General Court Martial for offences punishable under Sections 302, 325 and 342 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The first accused (Wg. Cdr. M.S Mander) has filed the present petition challenging GCM proceedings, whereby he was found guilty of Charge Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and the offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to be cashiered. On confirmation, the Chief of Air Staff remitted the five years rigorous imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment and confirmed the sentence of cashiering. 2. The facts of the case as set out by the petitioner, in brief, are: On 3.3.1998, Airman (Signalman) Garje misbehaved with the wife of Flt. Lt. Verma, when he had gone to repair the telephone at his residence. Flt. Lt. Verma reported the matter to the petitioner, who in turn, reported it to the ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Wpil Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut I
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 65-CE/GZB/2007 dated 29.6.2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of submersible pumps and parts thereof falling under Chapter sub heading 8413.13 of the first schedule to the CETA, 1985. The appellant received export order for supply of submersible pumps and DG sets. They procured DG sets from M/s. Jackson and Company falling within jurisdiction of Central Excise division IV, Silvassa under Vapi Commissionerate. It is claimed by the appellants that the bought out items were also subject to random checking before eventually exported. The appellants have filed ARE-1 in respect of goods manufactured by them and executed necessary bond / LUT and debited from the bond amount to the extent of the duty involved on the goods manufactured by them. In the same ARE-1, they also mentioned the DG sets as bought out items and duty involv...
Tag this Judgment!