Delhi Court October 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.
Disney Enterprises Inc and anr. Vs. Harakchand Keniya and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2011
1. The plaintiffs have filed the above-mentioned suit on 12.07.2007 for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts and delivery up the infringing material etc.2. The plaintiff No. 1, namely Disney Enterprises, Inc. is a Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware in the United States of America with its principal place of business at 500 South Buena Vista Street, Burbank, California 91521-6840, USA.3. The plaintiff No. 2, a subsidiary of plaintiff No.1, is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The registered office of plaintiff No.2 is at 4/F, Peninsula Tower-1, Ganapatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013.4. The plaintiff No.1 and/or its subsidiary and affiliated companies are engaged in a variety of businesses, including the operation of theme parks around the world, producing and distributing motion pictures and television programs, producing and selling clothing, books,...
Satish Kumar Yadav Vs. Uoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
1. The petitioner, appointed as a constable with the Central Reserve Police Force in the year 1995, was attached with 131st Bn. CRPF in the year 2003, deployed at Dimapur. While he was on 30 days earned leave and 15 days paternity leave from 22.12.2003 to 04.02.2004 the 131st battalion moved to Gund Srinagar from Dimapur. Having no knowledge of the same, petitioner reported for duty at Dimapur on 04.02.2004 i.e. the Battalion Headquarter, when he was informed that Unit had moved in the meanwhile to Gund Srinagar.2. A party of personnel, including the petitioner, were sent under the command of Havaldar GT Mark, to the Battalion Headquarters at Gund Srinagar by train. En route, at the New Delhi Railway Station where the train had halted, the petitioner took permission to have tea and breakfast and thus he parted company for a few minutes but he disappeared from the station. As the train was about to leave, Hav.G.T.Mark and other members searched, but could not locate the petitioner. The ...
Sartaz Malik Vs. Mithlesh Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
1. This revision petition is under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(in short ‘the Act’) and has been filed by the petitioner- tenant against the order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby his application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed by his landlady, respondent herein, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act to have the possession from him of one shop on the ground floor of the property no.C-189, Gali no.2, Main Road, Brahmpuri, Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘tenanted shop’) has been dismissed and an eviction order has been passed.2. The facts entitling the respondent-landlady to secure the eviction order were pleaded in detail in para no. 18 of the eviction petition and the relevant averments only are re-produced below:"That the humble petitioner is a widow. She has three sons namely(i) Sh. Sumit @ Banty(ii) Sh. Sanjay and(iii)Sh. Manish. Sh. Sumit @ Banty is married and employed in railway...
Ms Sentinel Consultants Pvt. Vs. Shri Sudhir Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
1. This is a suit for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 27 th March, 1997, recovery of Rs.25 lac as damages and for mandatory and perpetual injunction. The plaintiff Company was a tenant under defendant No.1 in respect of the ground floor of property No.A-249, Defence Colony, New Delhi. Defendant No.1 entered into a collaboration agreement with defendant No.2 whereunder the existing structure on property No. A-249, Defence Colony, New Delhi, was to be demolished and replaced by a new building having basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor. Under the collaboration agreement, basement, ground floor and terrace floor were to be given to defendant No.1 whereas the first floor and second floor were to go to defendant No.2. A tripartite agreement dated 27.03.1997 was entered into between the plaintiff and defendants whereby defendant No.1 agreed to sell all his rights, title and interest including property rights in the basement to be constructed by defendant N...
Samunder Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
1. These three appeals have been filed by the appellants, namely, Riken @ Diken, Deepak and Samunder under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the common judgment dated 19.02.2010 and the order on sentence dated 25.02.2010 by which the Additional Sessions Judge (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in S.C. No.111/1/08 convicted them under sections 302/201/34 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.2. The main charge framed against all the three accused on 23.3.2005 was that all of them on 6.6.2004 at KM Pole No.7/29 Up railway track, near Railway Crossing, Gate No.5 Ram Pura, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Railway Sarai Rohilla with common intention to commit the murder of Ramesh, with intent to cause his death, committed the offence punishable under Section 302 with read with Section 34 of IPC.3. The case of the prosecution (i) That on 07.06.2004 a telepho...
Anil Kumar Goswami Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
1. Appellant-Anil Kumar Goswami, along with Yashbir Singh and Dinesh Goswami (since acquitted) was arrested by the police in case FIR No.322/1994 registered at Police Station Bhajanpura and were challaned for the commission of offences punishable u/S 120-B and 302 IPC. The learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for the commission of the offence punishable u/S 302 IPC and acquitted the other co-accused persons namely Yashbir Singh and Dinesh Goswami. The appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.2. Present case was registered on the statement of Dr. Dhan Pal Singh (PW-4), father of the deceased-Pawan Kumar on 01.07.1994. In his statement made to the police, Dr.Dhan Pal Singh disclosed that his deceased son (Pawan Kumar) used to assist him in his clinic being run at his house. On 01.07.1994 at about 04:35 p.m. his deceased son Pawan Kumar had taken key of the cycle and had left the house. He thought that his son-Pawan Kumar (deceased) had gone to open the clinic.3. At abo...
Ms. Sarita Bali Vs. Union of India, Through the Foreign Secretary, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. Ms. Sarita Bali, belonging to the 1974 batch of Indian Foreign Service (IFS), the applicant herein, is aggrieved by the orders of the respondents in rejecting her representation for promotion to the Grade-I of IFS and also antedating of her promotion to the Grade-II of IFS when her batchmates were promoted. She is also aggrieved in respect of the composition of the Deparatmental Promotion Committee (DPC) with officers junior to her Batch in IFS which considered her case of antedating her promotion to Grade-II of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS). Impugning those orders she has approached this Tribunal in the present OA with the following relief(s):- “1.quash the order dated August, 2011 where in the respondent has rejected the representation dt. 14.09.2009 (copy of which has not been supplied to the applicant) and denied promotion to the applicant to Grade I. 1(a)quashing of Order dated 24.7.2009 issued by the Respondent No.1 whereby the app...
Raj Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through Commissioner of Polic ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. Raj Singh, Sub Inspector, who has since superannuated, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, calling in question order dated 19.08.2011 vide which the departmental enquiry pending against the applicant, which had been kept in abeyance, has been re-opened, and to direct the respondents to comply with the provisions of rule 11 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1980). 2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the Original Application reveal that a departmental enquiry was ordered against the applicant vide order dated 22.04.2003 on the allegations that while he was posted as ZO/Shahdara Colony Zone in Sadar Bazar Traffic Circle, in discharge of his official duties as a public servant on 18.04.2001 in the presence of panch witness Shri J. S. Negi, CHB, Department of Social Welfare, Delhi, demanded, accepted and obtained Rs.1000/- as ...
B. K. Singh Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, New Delhi and Anothe ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman: 1. B. K. Singh, Joint CDR, CESTAT, Mumbai, the applicant herein, while functioning as Additional Commissioner of Customs i/c Group-VB of Commissionerate of Customs (Imports), New Custom House, Mumbai, is said to have adjudicated some matters in the year 2000, for which he has now been issued charge memo dated 03.06.2008, after more than eight years. Eversince issuance of the memorandum aforesaid, the enquiry for three and half years by now, it is stated, has not made any headway. The applicant takes serious exception to the charge memo on variety of grounds, mainly being that there has been inordinate and unexplained delay in issuing the same, and that he would be seriously prejudiced in his defence at this distance of time. 2. The facts for the relief asked for and as mentioned above, which is obviously to seek setting aside of memorandum dated 03.06.2008 and all subsequent proceedings thereafter, as set out in this Original Application filed by the appli...
V.K. Verma Vs. Anand Prakash, the Principal Secretary-cum-director (Te ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
BY DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY: 1. CP 973/2010 has been filed by the applicant alleging willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in non-compliance of the Tribunal’s order dated 13.8.2010 in the OA No.2753/2009. Further it prays for directing the respondents to comply with the directions in true letter and spirit. On notice in the CP, counter replies have been filed on behalf of the GNCTD as well as the UPSC. The learned senior counsel Ms Jyoti Singh with Mr. Sourabh Ahuja would argue for the applicant and the learned counsels Shri Vijay Pandita and Shri Naresh Kaushik for the official respondents i.e. GNCTD and UPSC respectively. 2. Through the OA, the applicant working as Head of Department (Engineering), had impugned the respondents’ order dated 23.7.2009 rejecting his request for consideration for promotion to the upgraded post of HoD (Electrical Engineering) in the pay scale of Rs.12,000-18,300/-. Further, the applicant was also seeking consideration for the post of H...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »