Delhi Court January 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Joginder Singh and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
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 22 petitioners claim to be the residents of village Kanjhawala, consolidation proceedings wherein were begun in the year 1996. As per the petitioners, in the Scheme for Consolidation a 25 feet wide patch of land on either side of the 100 feet wide road carved out was reserved for forest / green belt. According to the petitioners, the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 15th April, 2010 in Revision Petition No.18/2007 CA filed by Sh. Rohtash Singh & Ors., de-reserved the said land reserved for the green belt and directed that the alleged deficiencies in land be made out from the said land. The said order dated 15th April, 2010 of the Financial Commissioner was challenged by one Smt. Birmati by filing W.P.(C) No.4239/2010 in this Court. The said W.P.(C) No.4239/2010 was disposed of vide order dated 5t...
Sonia Daga and anr Vs. Indian Oil Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. The order dated 15th July 2008 passed by the Respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (`IOCL) terminating the retail outlet dealership of M/s Maheshwari Service Station is under challenge in this petition.2. On 15th March 1999 the IOCL entered into a dealership agreement with Shri Renu Daga who was the sole proprietor of M/s Maheshwari Service Station. Shri Daga died on 4th October 2003 leaving behind his mother Smt. Vipin Lata Daga (Petitioner No. 2), his wife Sonia Daga (Petitioner No. 1) and son Master Divit Daga. After the death of Shri Daga the proprietory concern, M/s Maheshwari Service Station, was reconstituted as a partnership with Petitioners 1 and 2 as partners. The prior approval to the running of the retail outlet by the firm was granted by IOCL by a letter dated 12th January 2004. A partnership deed was executed on 19th January 2004 and was registered on 23rd January 2004. The Petitioner No. 1 holds 60% of the shares and Petitioner No. 2 holds the balance 40% in the prof...
Smt. Geeta Devi Goel Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may No. be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported No. in Digest?1. This is a petition for grant of probate of the WILL dated 4th December, 1997 executed by late Shri Anand Parkash Goel, husband of the petitioner.It is alleged in the petition that late Shri Anand Parkash Goel had executed a WILL dated 4th December, 1997. He died on 24 th July, 2004 and was survived by four Class-I legal heirs i.e. his widow/petitioner Smt. Geeta Devi Test Goel and three sons namely Shri Nitin Goel, Shri Rohit Kumar Goel and Shri Ajay Kumar Goel.2. The citation was published in "Indian Express" (New Delhi Edition) and notice issued to the non-applicant legal heirs of the deceased testator was also duly served on them. Non-applicant legal heir Ajay Kumar Goel filed no objection in the form of an affidavit on his behalf as also on behalf of other non-applicant legal heir Rohit Kumar Goel, who h...
Ram Gopal Vs. Bhupinder Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?1. This is a second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment dated 30.05.2001 passed by the learned ADJ in RCA No.393/2000 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 06.02.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No.456/1994 has been dismissed.2. Briefly stating, the facts giving rise to the filing of this case are that Late Smt. Usha, daughter of the appellant was married to the respondent at Delhi. She lived with her husband after her marriage. However, she died in unnatural circumstance within 7 years of her marriage. According to the appellant, she was maltreated by her husband and his parents on account of bringing insufficient dowry in marriage. She used to be tortured for bringing more and more dowry. It is also the ...
Shri Ashok Kumar Vs. Shri Bachu Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.4.2005 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 02.3.2005 whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff Ashok Kumar seeking partition and injunction had been dismissed.2. The plaintiff was the son of Lakhi Ram. Lakhi Ram had died on 16.4.1987 leaving behind his widow Shanti Devi, four sons and one married daughter. Contention was that the following four properties being joint family properties were co-owned by all the legal heirs viz:i. House No.2726-A, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi.ii. House No.3886, Gali Nimwali Near Jagat Cinema Khirti Tafzul Hussain , Machli Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi iii. House and shop bearing No.3603 and 3604 situated in Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi.iv. House No.4202, Gali No.10, Aj...
Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Parul Food Specialities (P) L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes2. To be referred to Reporters or not Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest YesIA No. 867/2010 [u/s 135(2) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 & O. 39 R. 1&2 r/w S. 151 of CPC by Pltf.] IA Nos. 3001/2010 & 7424/2010 (O. 39 R. 4 r/w S. 151 of CPC by Deft.)1. Parties in this case are locked in an intense court battle over the exclusive right to use the name of one of the reigning deitys from amongst pantheon of Hindu Gods; not for any altruistic purpose but for pure commercial gains. Since the products in issue, in respect of which the impugned mark is being used are: ghee, milk products and dairy products, the God who has been invoked; and the name which would, in the litigants estimation, catch consumers imagination is "KRISHNA". The plaintiff claims exclusivity over the word mark and label mark KRISHNA; which includes the attendant pictorial depiction.2. It is pertinent to note at this stage that...
North Delhi Power Limited Vs. Shri Kanwar Pal Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. The present appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 18.7.2003 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 17.7.1999 whereby the suit of the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction to the effect that defendant i.e. Delhi Electricity Supply Undertakings (DESU) be restrained from disconnecting the electricity connection of the plaintiff in terms of the inspection report dated 6.3.1995 was partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The finding of the trial judge had been affirmed in the impugned judgment.2. Plaintiff Kanwar Pal Singh and Amrik Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction. Plaintiff no.1 was the registered consumer of K. No.515-173298 IP and K. No.515-17203-9- IP and K. No.1272047 IP installed at his village. On 06.3.1995 officials of the defendant conducted an inspect...
Ms. Meenakshi Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
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 petitioner having failed to secure admission in the academic year 2009-2010 in the Doctorate of Philosophy (Ph.D.) programme in the subject of Hindi of the respondent University and her representations in this regard having been rejected by the Dean (Research) and Deputy Registrar, Colleges respectively of the respondent University, this writ petition was filed challenging the orders of rejection of representation and claiming direction to the respondent University to admit the petitioner in the academic year 2009-2010. Though the writ petition came up before this Court first on 2 nd December, 2009 and on 9th December, 2009 notice was issued but on the contention of the counsel for the respondent University appearing on advance notice that the petitioner had concealed facts, no interim relief was grante...
Sh. Satish Kumar Vs. Shri Vikas and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
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? Yes1. These two intra-Court appeals challenging the impugned order dated 13.4.2010 passed in WP(C) No.4603/2008 have been filed by the writ petitioner Vikas [the appellant in LPA No.430/2010 and the respondent No.1 in LPA No.334/2010] and Satish Kumar [the appellant in LPA No.334/2010 and the respondent No.1 in LPA No.430/2010] from different spectrums. Regard being had to the composite nature of the order and their insegregable consequential impact on each other, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a singular order. 2. The facts, as unfurled, are that Vikas, the appellant in LPA No.430/2010, a candidate of the Indian National Congress (INC), had contested for the post of Councilor from ward No.78 i.e. Majnu-Ka-Tila of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and was declared as elected. H...
Mujahid Beg and ors Vs. U.O.i.and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
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 twelve petitioners impugn the communication dated 27 th July, 2010 of the Director (Central Universities) of the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India rendering clarification with respect to the order dated 4 th February, 2010. The order dated 4th February, 2010 was issued by the President of India in capacity as the Visitor of the Aligarh Muslim University and in exercise of powers under Section 13(2B) of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920. It is the case of the petitioners that in the name of the clarification, the scope of the order dated 4th February, 2010 has been restricted.2. The order dated 4th February, 2010 was a sequel to the original order dated 23rd July, 2009 made in exercise of powers under Section 13(2B) supra. Under the provisions of...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »