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.
Ajit Singh and ors. Vs. Pushpa Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of complaint case bearing No. 34/2006 under Section 406/452/323/504/506/147 IPC, P.S. Banna Devi, District Aligarh, U.P. This case was transferred for trial to Delhi under orders of the Supreme Court and is presently pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate. Quashing of this criminal case has been sought on the ground that respondent Pushpa Rani had entered into a compromise with the petitioners through Mediation cell on 13th March, 2008 and it was agreed in the compromise that this case would be got quashed. It was also agreed that the petitioner No. 1 would withdraw his divorce case pending before the Court of ADJ. However, the petitioner No. 1 withdrew his case, the respondent did not agree for quashing of the criminal case and therefore this petition h...
Larsen and Toubro Limited (L and T) . Vs. Leuci Communications and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
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 Digest?1. This is a suit for injunction, damages and delivery of the infringing material. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The plaintiff- company holds copyright in respect of trademark/logo LT (in a circle) vide Registration No.1169145 dated 24th January, 2003 under Class 9 under 4 th Schedule to Trademarks Act, 1999. Two Danish Nationals, Henning Holck-Larsen and Soren Kristian Tourbo started business in the partnership, which they established in the year 1938. The partnership firm was later converted into a Limited Company and the plaintiff-company which was incorporated on 07th February, 1946 took over the business of the partnership firm set up by those two Danish nationals. The plaintiff-company is carrying business in India as also any other countries for last many years and claims ...
Atul Chopra and ors Vs. Tecnotree Corporation and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may - Not necessary be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? - Not necessary3. Whether the judgment should be - Not necessary reported in the Digest?ORDER1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. The Plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the Share Purchase Agreement dated 14th December, 2008 is null and void on account of fraudulent misrepresentations made by defendant No.1 and its Directors/officers. The plaintiffs are also seeking status quo ante as prevailing before Share Purchase Agreement dated 14th December, 2008 and consequential transfer back of the shares held by the plaintiffs in the Indian Company. The Plaintiffs are also seeking a declaration that FIPB approval dated 20th April, 2009 granted by the Government of India, defendant No.18 is null and void.2. The plaintiffs were the shareholders of erstwhile company, namely, Lifetree Convergence ...
Air Cmde Praduram Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. Petitioner by this petition has prayed to set aside/quash results of the Promotion Board held on 14th January 2010 for considering the officers of the rank of Air Cmde to Air Vice Marshal of the Logistics Branch in the Indian Air Force. He has also sought relief by setting aside/quashing the K. Broadcast Signal No. PO/2666 dated 5th February 2010 issued by the Air HQ containing the list of names of officers approved to the rank of Air Vice Marshal in the Logistics Branch. Further he has sought to direct the respondents to hold a Review Promotion Board immediately before the incumbents retirement on 31st May 2010 and consider the petitioners eligibility by awarding discretionary weightage by the Promotion Board consistent with the demonstrated performance vis-a-vis the petitioner who have already been selected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was commissioned in the Logistics Branch of IAF on 16th June 1976. His performance throughout his career was commendabl...
Hav. Shankar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to maintain the notional seniority of the applicant and consider his promotion to the rank of Nb. Sub. w.e.f. 1st August 2008, the date on which his junior was promoted by waiving his age limit and he may be compensated by awarding Rs. 5 lakhs to him for the harassment and financial loss suffered by him. 2. The incumbent was recruited as a Sepoy in Indian Army on 6th November 1984 and he was promoted to the rank of Naik with effect from 1st March 2000 though he did not pass the Class-II Test but he has passed the Class-II Test on 22nd March 2003. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Hav. on 5th May 2004 but he could not be sent to the necessary qualifying course for promotion from one Hav. To Nb.Sub. and that also he passed on 5th July 2008 but before he could be promoted he has already crossed the upper age limit for consideration to the post of Nb. Sub. Hence he was not granted a promoti...
Brigadier K.P. Chand Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that the order dated 18th May 2000 passed by HQ Bengal Area may be quashed being contrary to the principles of natural justice and the punishment of censure awarded by the order dated 12th July 2010 may be quashed. 2. The petitioner is in a rank of Brigadier and the allegations against the petitioner was that he tried to molest the wife of his colleague and, therefore, a complaint was filed and a Court of Enquiry was held against him and after that a show cause notice was issued to him on 13th may 2010 by the HQ Easter Command on the basis of the Court of Enquiry placed before the GOC-In Chief-Easter Command who after due deliberation and consideration found petitioner guilty for improperly maintaining a direct contact with the wife of a Colonel (name is deliberately not mentioned) for a prolonged period. The GOC after due consideration has directed to initiate the administrative action against him for misconduct and called upon him to file a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›