Delhi Court February 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.
M/S Giani Gurcharan Singh and Sons Vs. Madhusudhan Singh and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
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 injunction, delivery up of infringing material and rendition of accounts or in the alternative for damages.2. The plaintiff is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of edible items including milk and dairy products, ice creams, faluda, milk shakes etc. The plaintiff claims to have adopted through its predecessors the trademark/trade name/label GIANI'S in the year 1960 and using the same since then. The plaintiff also claims to be the proprietor of the artistic features involved in the trademark/trade name/label GIANI'S. the trademark has been registered in the name of the plaintiff in respect of flour and preparations made from cereals including faluda as well as in respect of milk and other dairy products. The plaintiff claims sale of Rs.34,90,040/-, 36...
Abhishek Agrawalla Vs. Boortmalt Nv and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes. 1. This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 9th October 2009 passed by learned MM in complaint case number 108 of 2008.2. A complaint was filed against the petitioner who is a resident of Noida adjoining Delhi falling in U.P under Sections 420/406/120B IPC and the learned MM after recording pre-summoning evidence and appreciating documents filed by the complainant came to conclusion that the petitioner and his co-accused entered into a criminal conspiracy and cheated complainant company of several crore of rupees. The learned MM summoned the petitioner and other co-accused under Section 420 IPC.3. The only ground pressed during arguments of this petition assailing order of learned MM is that the order was bad in law in view of the fact that the ...
Smt. Maya Rani Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?1. M/s. Mod Enterprises was a partnership firm constituted by one Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, respondent No. 3 herein and Smt. Maya Rani, the petitioner herein. The partnership firm with the partners signing availed of loan facilities from respondent No. 1 Bank packing credit loan facility of Rs.5 lakhs and FDBP loan facility in the sum of Rs.8 lakhs. The documents in this behalf were executed in the prescribed form, which are not in dispute.2. It is the case of respondent No. 1 Bank that the firm failed to submit the export documents after shipment of goods to liquidate the pre-shipment advance. The payment was also not made. Similarly, the terms and conditions of packing credit facilities were also not adhered to.3. The important aspect is that there was a change in constitution of the firm in pursuance whereto...
Amit Shukla Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.51/2008 lodged under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered with Police Station: Crime against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi.2. Counsel for the petitioner states that after lodging of the aforesaid FIR by the complainant, Ms. Richa Shukla, (wife of the petitioner) against her husband, the petitioner and the members of his family on 05.08.2008, a petition for grant of anticipatory bail preferred by the petitioner in this Court, registered as BAIL APPLN. 2276/2008, was allowed vide order dated 28.10.2009 on the conditions as laid down in the said order. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, charge-sheet was filed on 12.05.2010, whe...
international Commission on Irrigation and Drainage Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
ORDER1. International Commission for Irrigation and Drainage (the petitioner, for short) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with the aim and mission to stimulate and promote the development of arts, sciences and techniques of engineering, agriculture, economics, ecology and social science in managing water and land resources for irrigation, drainage, flood control and river training applications, including research and development and capacity building, adoption of comprehensive approaches and day to day techniques for sustainable agriculture in the world. The main objectives of the petitioner society are as under:-"(a) Planning, financing, socio-economic and environmental aspects of irrigation, drainage, flood control and undertakings for the reclamation and improvement of lands as well as the design, construction and operation of appurtenant engineering works including dams, reservoirs, canals, drains and other related infrastructure for storage, conve...
Mic Electronics Ltd. and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.1. The present is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the judgment dated 15th December, 2010 in OMP No. 742/2010 whereby the application of the Appellant under Section 9 of the said Act was dismissed.2. The petition under Section 9 of the said Act filed by the Appellant prayed for the following reliefs:"(i) stay the operation of the letter dated 25/11/2010 cancelling the contract for display of advertisement through LED screens in market areas and forfeiture of the security amount, by the Respondent MCD.(ii) direct the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the possession and operation of the 9 sites.(iii) restrain the respondent MCD from taking any steps for recovery of the impugned demand in terms of the letter ...
Suresh Kumar Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? 1. SI Ram Kumar was detailed as the Platoon Post Commander of the F Coy of 50th Bn CRPF in April 1994. In the month of September 1994 the unit was deployed at Moradabad, UP, when indisputably, on 20.9.1994 at around 21:00 hours he was physically assaulted by 3 constables, within the precincts of the camp. Hearing the commotion and cries of help members of the Unit gathered at the place of incident and saw SI Ram Kumar bleeding in a ragged condition. The Officiating Commandant (OC) Insp. Pahalwan Singh ordered for a fall-in of the company and at the end of the check roll call, SI Ram Kumar was asked to identify the assailants. It is alleged that the SI Ram Kumar identified the petitioner, Ct.Suresh Kumar, Ct.Umesh Kumar and Ct.Karan Singh as the ones who had physically assaulted him. Thereafter, a signal was sent to th...
Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for grant of parole for a period of three months to attend to his father, who is aged 87 years and admitted in ICU in M.G.S.Hospital, Punjabi Bagh and also to arrange finance for his medical treatment.2. A Status Report is handed over by the learned ASC for the State. As per the said Status Report, the petitioner is an accused in FIR No.154/1983 lodged under Sections 302/34 IPC. An enquiry was conducted with regard to the medical condition of the father of the petitioner, Sh.Satpal Arora. A certificate has been obtained from Dr.Vivek Sharma at M.G.S.Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, wherein it is stated that the father of the petitioner was admitted in the hospital ...
Anup Kumar Srivastava Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes 1. The writ petition and the connected contempt petition concern the Petitioners entitlement to Government accommodation. The case of the Petitioner is that although he was at serial No. 1 in the General Pool category and was entitled to a 5A type house either at Ashoka Road or Mahadev Road, the accommodation at 60, Ashoka Road which fell vacant was allotted to Respondent No. 3, who is a Member of Parliament (MP) in the Lok Sabha. The writ petition has been filed challenging the said allotment made in favour of Respondent No. 3.2. This Court by an order dated 6th October 2010 directed that in regard to accommodation at 60, Ashoka Road "till the next date of hearing, status quo as regards possession will be maintained." However, on 19th November 2010 Respondent No. 3 was put in possession of the said accommoda...
Shyam Mohan Gupta and ors. Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta Thr. Lrs and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed Yes to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesCM No.17926/2008Since the LRs of the deceased respondent No.1 were duly served and the counsel appeared on their behalf, the application stands disposed of.It is, however, noted that nobody is appearing on behalf of the respondents since 22.09.2009. The respondents seem to have lost interest in the matter.FAO No.439/20081. This appeal has been filed by the propounders of the Will dated 09.12.1994 which was registered before the Sub-Registrar on 13.12.1994 alleged to have been executed by Late Smt. Rukmani Devi, the testatrix thereby bequeathing her house bearing No.3014, Masjid Khazoor, Kinari Bazaar, Delhi in favour of the appellants. However, the learned ADJ vide order dated 01.09.2008 dismissed the probate petition registered as P.C. No.162/2006.2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to filing of this ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »