Delhi Court January 2011 Judgments
M/S Bhatia Industries and Others Vs. M/S Pandey Industries and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may Yes be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest?1. This is a suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff No.1 claims to be the owner of the trademark TIYA having acquired it by assignment from plaintiff No.2. It is alleged that the mark TIYA was registered in the name of plaintiff No.2 vide registration No.299272 on 13th September, 1974. The registration of the trademark in the name of plaintiff No.1 M/s Tiya Industries was renewed for some years but the registration discontinued thereafter. The trademark is stated to have been assigned by plaintiff No.2 to plaintiff No.1 in the year 1983 and is being used by plaintiff No.1 since the year 1981 in respect of steel and rubber parts for the cycle and auto industries mainly of steel balls, nuts bolts, rings, spoke wires and cycle parts etc. The plaintiffs claim to be the exclusive owner of the trademark TIYA wi...
Tag this Judgment!Rajwati and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
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?1. This petition has been preferred by petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the investigation in FIR No. 237/2009 be transferred from the police of PS Jaitpur to any other Investigating Agency on the ground that police officials of PS Jaitpur were in connivance with respondents/accused persons. Notice of the petition was served on the State and counter affidavit filed by the State would show that an FIR No. 236/09 was registered under Section 363 IPC at the instance of respondent no.6 regarding kidnapping of one minor boy named Sanjay. The petitioner was working as domestic servant with the respondents the petitioner approached the Police Station on 23rd December, 2009 and complained that on 19th December, 2009 she was given beatings by respondents no. 6 & 7. She...
Tag this Judgment!Rajpal Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the order? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the order should be reported in Digest? Yes 1. The Petitioner prays for quashing the decision of the Respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) communicated by a letter dated 13th October 2006 rejecting his request for allotment of an LIG flat under the Ambedkar Awas Yojna, 1989 (AAY). The Petitioner prays for a mandamus to the DDA to allot him an alternative flat in the same area/zone at the old cost.2. The Petitioner, who belongs to scheduled caste, was at the time of applying for an LIG flat under the AAY, staying in an unauthorised colony. At that point in time no house number had been allotted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Petitioner gave his residential address as Rajeev Gali, Nehru Vihar, Dayalpur, Delhi- 110094. The Petitioners priority matured in 2003. In the draw of lots held on 31st October 2003, he was allotted Flat No. 300,...
Tag this Judgment!Balraj Taneja Vs. Rajinder Lal Taneja and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
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?1. This is a suit for partition of property No. 9-B, Mathura Road, Jangpura, New Delhi as also for injunction. Defendants No.1 and 2 are the brothers of the plaintiff, defendant No.3 is his sister-in-law being the widow of his brother late Sh. Ashwani Kumar Taneja whereas defendants No.4 and 5 are children of late Sh. Ashwani Kumar Taneja. It is an admitted case that late Sh. Raghu Nath Rai was the owner of property No. 9-B, Mathura Road, Jangpura, New Delhi. Though it was alleged in para 2 of the plaint that the suit property is in effect a joint family property and has been referred to and registered as HUF property, it was expressly stated by the plaintiff's vide their statement dated January 11, 2011 that this was the self acquired property of late Sh. Raghu Nath Rai and no other person or entity had any ri...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Naved Yar Khan Vs. Mr. Haroon Yusuf
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
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?1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 23rd October, 2010 whereby in a complaint made by the petitioner, the respondent was summoned by the Court under Section 177 IPC and under Section 191/193 IPC. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the court below on the ground that the learned ACMM should have summoned the respondent under Section 420 IPC.2. The complainant made complaint against the respondent that respondent filed a false affidavit before the Returning Officer at the time of filing his nomination papers. In the affidavit he deposed that no criminal case was pending against him in which cognizance was taken by the Court whereas in fact a criminal complaint was pending against the respondent for offence under Section 500 IPC at Tis Hazari Court. The contention of the petitioner was that by fil...
Tag this Judgment!Sureksha Luthra Vs. the Registrar General, Delhi High Court and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. The petitioner joined the services of the Delhi High Court as an LDC on 21.02.1979 and attained her promotions from time to time right till the post of Deputy Registrar on 01.11.2006.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that when her case for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar was considered along with other candidates, she was superseded and not appointed as a Joint Registrar despite being the senior most Deputy Registrar. The representations made by the petitioner against her supersession were also rejected. However, the petitioner, while her representations were rejected, was appointed as a Joint Registrar against a vacancy vide order dated 03.06.2009 with effect from 21.03.2009. Thus, the only question which is required to be considered in the present case is the date from which the petitioner is required to be treated as having joined the post of Joint Registrar and whether her supersession was valid.3. We may note that learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded tha...
Tag this Judgment!Roop Kishore Dawar Vs. Mcd and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
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 the Digest?1. The counsel for the contesting respondents and the MCD have appeared on advance notice and finding that the writ petition itself can be disposed of, the writ petition has been taken up for consideration. The date fixed of 14th March, 2011 is cancelled.2. The petition was filed seeking mandamus to the respondent MCD to take action with respect to the unauthorized construction in the front portion of property No.94, National Park, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi. Notice of the petition was issued and the respondent MCD and the Police Authorities directed to have the ongoing unauthorized construction stopped and to take action with respect to the unauthorized construction already carried out.3. The respondent No.4 and one Smt. Sarojini Dadlani (who had filed application for impleadment) filed for stay of the said o...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Parveen Kumar Vs. Shri NavIn Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
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?The petitioner/applicant has invoked the Civil contempt jurisdiction of this Court by the above noted petition on account of alleged disobedience of the order dated 23rd December, 2010 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 8619/2010 titled as Praveen Kumar v. UOI & Ors.The petitioner has filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 13th December, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 3160/2010 holding that there was no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the orders of transfer issued on administrative grounds/public interest, and that the transfer order cannot be interfered with except if the orders are issued by an incompetent authority, which was found not to be the case in the present matter of the petitioner and ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Boots Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Rajinder Mohindra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 20.11.1989 executed between the plaintiff and the defendants. The prayers sought in the present suit are as under: a) Pass a decree for specific performance of the Agreement dated 20th November, 1989 in relation to property No.E/44- 10, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-110020 in favour of the Plaintiff, directing the Defendant Nos.1 and 2, their servants, agents successors and assignees to sell, transfer assign and convey the property to the Plaintiff;b) alternatively pass a decree for recovery of Rs.23 lakhs against the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in case this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that the Plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance;c) award cost of the suit; andd) pass such ot...
Tag this Judgment!A.P.Narang Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
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?1. These two revision petitions have been filed by the two office bearers of a Group Housing Society viz. M/s IRCON Employees CGHS Ltd. aggrieved by the order dated 17th February, 2010 directing framing of charge against the petitioners under Section 420/471/120-B IPC.2. This Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 10006/2004 had directed CBI to investigate about the genuineness of societies to whom land had been allotted by the DDA. On the basis of these directions, an FIR was registered on 7th November, 2006 under provision of Prevention of Corruption Act alleging conspiracy of officials of Registrar of Cooperative Society and four office bearers of petitioner society including petitioners. CBI investigated into the affairs of the society and about the genuineness of the society and gave a finding that all the members of the societ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »