Delhi Court October 2011 Judgments
Moti at Mohit Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. These two appeals on behalf of the appellants Rajesh Rekwar and Moti @ Mohit are directed against the judgment dated 26.02.2010 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South-East-02, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.53/2008 arising out of FIR No.428/2004 registered at police station Defence Colony under Sections 302/380/201/411/34 IPC. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the appellants Rajesh Rekwar and Moti @ Mohit were found guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as also for the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The appeals are also directed against the order on sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 02.03.2010, whereby both the appellants Rajesh Rekwar and Moti @ Mohit were sentenced to imprisonment for life in respect of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 2000/- each. Insofar as the offence under Section 380/34 IPC is ...
Tag this Judgment!National Aviation Company of India Ltd. Vs. General Commerce Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. We shall be referring to the parties as per their description in the plaint. Plaintiff (respondent No.1) sought decree in sum of `7,43,568.88 alleging that M/s.Freight Wings and Travels Pvt. Ltd., defendant No.2, M/s.Daga Air Agents, defendant No.3 and M/s.Friends Clearing Agency Pvt. Ltd. defendant No.4 were the agents of Air India International defendant No.1/appellant and that M/s.Skylines defendant No.5 was the clearing and forwarding agent appointed by the plaintiff. That 37 consignment for carriage by air from New Delhi to Tashkent were entrusted to defendant No.1 which charged freight in sum of `8,95,697.15 which was paid by the plaintiff through defendant No.5. The goods being carried to the destination it was alleged that freight in excess by `4,96,864.67 was paid. Alleging that the said sum was not refunded, suit was filed claiming said sum plus `2,46,703.88 towards pre-suit interest which was calculated @19.5% per annum and thus the decree claimed was in sum of `7,43,568....
Tag this Judgment!South African Breweries International (Finance) B.V. and anr. Vs. Moha ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. This is a suit for permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up of the infringing packaging and material. Plaintiff No. 1 is a company registered in Netherlands, whereas plaintiff No. 2 is a company registered in India and is a joint venture company, promoted by SAB Group, to which plaintiff No. 1-company belongs. The trademark CASTLE, which was originally adopted and used by Charles Glass, doing business as Glass & Company in respect of beer, in the year 1884. In 1895, Glass & Company was taken over by the South African Breweries Limited, which assigned worldwide rights in the trademark CASTLE to Avalon International Incorporate, which subsequently changed its name to SABMARK International Incorporated. Subsequently, SABMARK International assigned those rights to South African Breweries International Holdings Inc., which, in turn, assigned them to plaintiff No. 1- Company. Plaintiff No. 1 claims registration of the trademark CASTLE and CASTLE label i...
Tag this Judgment!Dharamwati Vs. Satbir Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. Appellants, Dharamwati and Manohari Devi are real sisters. They are the daughters of late Chandgi Ram. Their grandfather, late Rai Singh, was blessed with two sons named Chandgi Ram and Akhey Singh.2. Chandgi Ram and Akhey Singh were the joint owners, in possession, of two properties, the first comprised in Khasra No.164(3-19) which was assigned Municipal No.84 village Adhchini and the second being plot ad-measuring 153 sq.yd. assigned Municipal No.43 village Adhchini.3. From his marriage with Smt.Gopali, Chandgi Ram was blessed with four sons and five daughters, one of whom, Smt.Khazani, died in the year 1965.4. On the death of Chandgi Ram in the year 1958, his half share in the two properties was inherited by his widow, four sons named Hardwari, Sardar Singh, Raghubir Singh and Kartar Singh, and four daughters named Smt.Risali, Smt.Kalawati, Smt.Manohari Devi and Smt.Dharamwati. For reasons unknown, neither party has explained as to what happened to the right of Smt.Khazani who di...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prakash Mehra Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. Three suits pertaining to the basement, ground floor and second floor of property bearing Municipal No.S-455, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi, seeking a declaration that Sh.Krishan Gopal Sharma was neither the owner nor had any right to create a mortgage on 21.12.1989 in respect of property No.S-455, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi and as a consequence declare void the notice (undated) issued by the Union Bank of India under Sub-Section 4 of Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 and decree for injunction to restrain the bank from proceeding further with the sale of the property have been held to be barred by virtue of Section 34 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002.2. Section 34 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 reads as under:-"34. Civil Court not to have juris...
Tag this Judgment!Zippo Manufacturing Company Vs. Anil Moolchandani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. The plaintiff is a company registered in U.S.A and claims to be world leader in manufacture and trade of lighters, which it sells under its invented trademark Zippo, which is alleged to be well-known trademark. The use of the trademark Zippo extends to other products as well such as desk accessories, writing instruments, travel accessories, outdoor products, golf accessories, money clips, key holders, tape measures, shoes, belts and suspenders, etc. The design of the trademark Zippo has the lighter resting in a rectangular casing, split into two parts and the bottom part has a matching flip-top part welded into a hinge. Both the parts are rectangular in shape with rounded edges and corners to hold the flip-top in a fully opened or shut position. The lighter incorporates a spring and cam arrangement that enables the user to operate the top with on hand. An important feature of the lighter is the chimney or windscreen enclosing the wick with round air holes punched into its sides in h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Harnarain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. The present Appeal filed by the Department under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-"Whether the ITAT could have affirmed the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty when the assessee despite filing return of income after date of search that is 18.6.2003 did not offer additional income till after questionnaire was served on him, when it was imminent that the assessee had no choice but to furnish details regarding the gift received?"2. Despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Assessee and the matter has been determined in their absence.3. The facts as are necessary for the disposal of the present Appeal are that:-(a) A search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential premises of the Assessee on 18th June, 2003.(b) The Assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 on 28th October,...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Mahaveer Educational Society and ors. Vs. Rajesh Jindal and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. FAO(OS)No.518/2011 lays a challenge to the order dated 3.2.2011 dismissing RA.No.9418/2010 as also two accompanying Civil Miscellaneous Applications being IA.No.9419/2010 and IA.No.9420/2010.2. RFA(OS)No.111/2011 challenges the order dated 19.5.2010 disposing of the suit by recording a compromise between the parties.3. Both appeals are being decided by a common judgment inasmuch as, a common question of law on the same facts, between the same parties, arise for consideration in both appeals.4. Vide RA.No.9418/2010 it was prayed before the learned Single Judge that order dated 19.5.2010 i.e. the order challenged in RFA(OS)No.111/2011 be reviewed and recalled.5. Sushil Kumar Jain, Subhash Chand Jain and Jogi Ram Jain joined as plaintiffs No.2, 3 and 4 respectively, and under the banner of Bhagwan Mahavir Educational Society (Regd.) which was plaintiff No.1, filed a suit seeking declaration that membership of defendants No.2, 3 and 4 i.e. Kanak Mal Saklecha, Rekha Jindal and Mahender P...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Delhi Public School
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. Appeals of the Revenue are admitted on the following substantial question of law:"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT erred in holding that Assessee was not in default under Section 201(1) and not liable for interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961."2. Some of the Appeals are filed by the Income Tax Department and some other Appeals by the Assessee which are in the nature of counter objections. Since the issue involved in the Appeals of the Revenue is common, these Appeals taken up first for decision.3. An on-the-spot interactive education programme was conducted on 10th March, 2005 wherein it was revealed that the Assessee School was providing free educational facilities to the wards of teachers/staff members. The Assessing Officer(AO), based on his understanding of Rule 3(5) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, held that the Assessee had committed a default by lower deduction of TDS from the total salary and was thus liable to be...
Tag this Judgment!Canter Leasing and Finance (P) Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-2011
1. The appellant before this court is the owner of the vehicle which was the subject matter of the accident. The claimants Sh. Satpal Dhingra and Smt. Panchano Dhingra had claimed compensation on account of the death of their son Jatindra Dhingra in the fateful accident which was occurred on 05.12.1995; the driver of the vehicle was Kala; the vehicle had been registered in the name of the Canter Leasing & Finance (P) Ltd. (respondent No. 2); it was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 3). The driver and the owner i.e. respondent No. 1 and 2 had been proceeded ex parte. Petition had been contested by the Insurance Company alone. The Award had been passed in favour of the claimants on 22.04.2004. Recovery rights had been awarded in favour of the Insurance Company. Thereafter on an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the owner of the vehicle, his application was allowed; the owner was given an opportunity to prove his defen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »