Delhi Court December 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.
Sh. Ashok Bhatia Vs. Sh. Om Prakash Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No. 330/2003 % 9th December, 2011 SH. ASHOK BHATIA ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate. versus SH. OM PRAKASH MALHOTRA ..... Respondent Through : Mr. A.P. Aggarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL).1. The counsel for the respondent says that the respondent has taken back the file and, therefore, he has no instructions. This matter is on the Regular Board of this Court since 4.7.2011. Today the matter is effective item No.6 on the Regular Board. I have, therefore, heard counsel for the appellant and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal..2. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment dated 18.1.2003 passed by the Trial Court. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court dismissed the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the appella...
Khatema Fibres Ltd Vs. M/S Nk Paper Tube Industries and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. Appeal No.949/2011 Reserved on: 30.11.2011 Pronounced on: 09.12.2011 Khatema Fibres Ltd. ...... Appellant Through: Mr. Manish Garg, Advocate Versus M/s NK Paper Tube Industries and Anr. ...... Respondent Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.PC against the orderdated 15.2.2011 passed by learned MM, New Delhi in CC No.139/1. 2. The appellant herein filed a complaint on 19.5.1997 in the Court oflearned MM under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ("the Act"for short) against respondent no.1 M/s NK Paper Tube Industries and itspartner Mr. Krishan Kumar Lohia for dishonor of the cheque dated29.8.1997 which was signed by the partner Mr. K.K. Lohia for an amount ofRs.4,08,971/- in favour of the appellant. The cheque got dishonoured onaccount of instructions of stop payment. In the said complaint, theevidence of the complainant post notice was recorded and ...
Jawaid Rahmani and anr Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 9th December, 2011 + W.P.(C) NO.857/2011 JAWAID RAHMANI and ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Adv. Versus UOI and ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with Dr. Saif Mahmood and Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, Advs. for R-2 and 3. CORAM :- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW JUDGEMENT RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J..1. This petition filed in public interest seeks a writ of quo warranto quashing the continuance of the respondent No.2 Mr. Hamidullah Bhat as the Director of the respondent No.3 National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language (NCPUL). Declaration is also sought that the appointment of the respondent No.2 to the said post was illegal and unlawful. Direction is also sought to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file complete investigation report in case RC 50/2005 pending against the respondent No.2. WP(C) No.857/2011 Page 1 of 18.2. Notice of the petit...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. A.S.Sachdeva and Sons Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
1. The respondent had made an offer when notice inviting tender was floated by DDA to construct the listed works in the notice inviting tender and upon acceptance of the bid a contract bond Ex.P-21 was executed. The respondent was to bring its own material, save and except those which was listed in the tender documents, to erect the constructions; and in respect of the material to be issued (listed in the tender documents), it was the obligation of DDA to supply the said material at the fixed cost recorded in the notice inviting tender. The general conditions of the contract had the usual clause 10CC which stipulates that increase in the price of labour and material based upon applicable indices issued by the Ministry of Commerce would be paid to the respondent as per formula prescribed in the clause, but not including the material which had to be issued by DDA. The reason is obvious; DDA was to supply the material at the fixed price. 2. It is not in dispute between the parties that th...
B.S.Verma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 1st July, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing WP(C) No.1065/2010 upholding the rateable value, determined by MCD, of Property No.E-305 East of Kailash, New Delhi at `1,07,700/- with effect from 01.04.1999. 2. Since the appellant appeared in person, and as would be evident from the facts noted here-in-after, has the habit of resiling from what ever he says, we would prefer to note the relevant facts with reference to the assessment file maintained by the Corporation in respect of the property in question. 3. The dispute began when the Municipal Corporation of Delhi proposed to enhance, with effect from 01.04.1999, the rateable value from the existing rateable value of `11,400/- to`1,50,000/- on account of letting of the ground floor. It be highlighted that the rateable value in sum of `11,400/- was on cost basis and on the assumption that the entire property was self occupied. At an inspection statedly carried ...
Hindon River Mills Ltd. Vs. Ifci Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.01.2011, WP(C) No.14999/2006 filed by the appellant ‘Hindon River Mills Ltd.’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Company’) has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding:- A. The grievance relatable to IFCI Ltd. (appointed as the operating agency by BIFR vide order dated 08.08.2005 with a mandate to prepare a scheme for revival of the ‘Company’) that it being one of the five secured creditors of the ‘Company’, IFCI Ltd. was not justified in assigning the debt due to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., could not be made a ground to challenge the assignment of the debt by IFCI Ltd. in favour of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. since the proper forum to raise said plea was BIFR. B. An identical issue raised was decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported as AIR 2007 Delhi 65 Haryana Steel & Alloys Ltd. Vs. IFCI Ltd., against which Petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal was dismiss...
R K JaIn Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
1. The petitioner assails the order dated 22.04.2010 passed by the Central Information Commissioner (CIC) upholding the order of the First Appellate Authority, and rejecting the petitioners application under the Right to Information Act,2005 (RTI Act, for short) by relying upon Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 2. It is the petitioner's case that upon complaints of corruption against Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member, CESTAT, the President of the CESTAT - a former Chief Justice of a High Court, made some adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram for the year 2000-01. The petitioner also alleges that subsequently, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue opened a file with the subject "Follow-up action on the integrity in the ACR for the year 2000-01 in respect of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member, (Tech), CESTAT". According to the petitioner, proper action was not taken in the matter and the file was closed in favour of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram. 3. The p...
Arjun Sahlot Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek the quashing of the communication dated 20.01.2011 issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) in the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India impleaded as respondent No. 1 herein, whereby the petitioner's request to include Austria/Germany as country of origin in the import license No. 0550001294 dated 25.11.2008 has been rejected on the ground that the request for amendment had been filed with the DGFT on 09.12.2010, whereas the validity of the import license aforesaid had expired on 25.11.2010. 2. The petitioner-Master Arjun Sahlot claims to be a Child National Champion of India of Equestrian Sports. The petitioner has placed on record certificates of various awards won by him in Equestrian Championships held in India. The case of the petitioner is that to build his career in the said sport, the petitioner intended to import three sport horses. ...
Societe Des Produits Nestle Vs. Continental Coffee Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
1. This suit was instituted against two defendants- Continental Coffee Limited and Ashraj Foods Specialties Pvt. Ltd. The name of Continental Coffee Limited was deleted from the array of defendants vide order dated 15th May, 2009 since it claimed that it was only supplying the coffee powder to defendant No.2, which was then selling that coffee in the impugned packaging. 2. The plaintiff No.1 is a company registered in Switzerland, whereas, the plaintiff No.2 is its Indian subsidiary. The plaintiff companies deal in a large number of products, including coffee, which they sell under the name ‘NESCAFE’. The plaintiffs are selling coffee using a distinctive Red Mug Device on its packaging of the coffee since the year 1978. In the year 1999, the plaintiff introduced Red Mug device, with a Golden Line running around the Mug, in India. The aforesaid device is stated to be extremely distinctive of the plaintiff being used on all packages, wrappers/labels, publicity materials etc. ...
M/S Krbl Ltd Vs. M/S Pk Overseas Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
1. By this appeal filed under section 104 read with Order 43 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the appellant seeks to challenge the order dated 27.8.2011 whereby the interim relief under Order 39 rule 1& 2 sought by the appellants in the suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain infringement of trademark was dismissed. 2. The adumbrated facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit under section 134 and 135 r/w section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 on the ground of passing off and under section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for infringement of or likely infringement of copyright in artistic work, for permanent injunction, rendition of accounts and delivery against the defendant/respondents. As per the plaintiff they are the registered proprietor and user of the trademark "AARATI" and the Copyright involved in the said trademark in respect to its product of premium rice and alleged that the use of the trademark "DIYA" and the copyright involved therein...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »