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.
Atul Gupta Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
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? ORDER1. This application for anticipatory bail has been preferred by the petitioner/accused who is a practicing advocate and claims to be a handicapped person.2. The allegations against the petitioner are that in a family matter, he was given a power of attorney by his uncle to represent him in the High Court in CS (OS) No.2495 of 2001. This suit was in respect of ownership rights of the complainant and other plaintiff over immovable property in Delhi. The accused Atul Gupta was trusted by his uncle living in U.P. and gave him power of attorney, since he was an advocate and working with a senior advocate Mr. Sharad Kumar Aggarwal. The accused got his senior Mr. Sharad Aggarwal engaged for his uncle to contest the case. In the year 2006, the complainant received a notice from MCD and from this notice, he learnt that the proper...
Surender Kumar Vs. Ajk Mass Communication Research Centre and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
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 the Digest?1. The petitioner claiming to be belonging to the Scheduled Caste, by this petition impugns the decision dated 3rd December, 2010 of the respondent No.1 Institute (of the respondent No.2 Jamia Millia Islamia University) rejecting the petitioners application / proposal for admission to the Ph.D. programme. The petitioner avers that the said decision is arbitrary, biased, without application of mind and without just and proper reasons.2. The petitioner had first applied for admission to the Ph.D. programme of the respondents in August, 2009 when his application was rejected for the reason of his then not having minimum 55% eligibility marks for admission to the said programme. It is the case of the petitioner that though the respondents were not following the UGC guidelines of relaxation of 5% marks for the Sche...
Grownbury Pharmaceuticals Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
ORDER1. The prayers in both the writ petitions are common. The Petitioners seek quashing of the "Combined Formulary" of the Central Government Health Services (CGHS)/Medical Stores Organisation (MSO) in respect of 622 Branded/Proprietary drugs announced by a letter dated 17th September 2010 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MHFW) and an alternative prayer is to direct the Respondents to include the names of the drugs of the Petitioners in the Combined Formulary list already announced.2. Earlier this Court had dismissed four writ petitions seeking similar relief by an order dated 31st January 2011. These were Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.552 of 2011 (M/s AAR ESS Remedies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India), 573 of 2011 (M/s Vivid Biotek Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India), 574 of 2011 (M/s Zunison Health Care v. Union of India) and 575 of 2011 (M/s Grownbury Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India).3. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel appearing for ...
Msm Discovery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not YES3. Whether the judgment should be reported YES in the Digest ?1. The appellant MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd. has filed a petition before Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT, for short) under the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Order 2004, against the New Delhi Television Limited and Star Den Media Services Private Limited, respondents 1 and 2 respectively, praying for the following reliefs:- "i. Hold and declare that the Distribution Term Sheet dated 01.04.2005 and its Amendments dated 29.08.07 and 01.04.2009 respectively (Agreement between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 is valid, binding and subsisting between the parties;ii. Direct respondent No. 1 to continue to perform and discharge its obligations under the Agreement till the expiration of the term of the Agreement, i.e., till 31.03.2012;iii. Restrain respo...
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Medical Association (Regd.) Delh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. In this public interest litigation preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though number of issues have been raised, yet on a considered scrutiny and regard being had to the proponements advanced at the bar, we are disposed to think that three principal issues arise for consideration, namely, whether the doctors, interns and junior residents in AIIMS can go on strike for whatever reason and further coerce the willing doctors not to discharge their duty on any count whatsoever; whether the competent authorities in charge of the said institutions are accountable to take appropriate action against the erring doctors on proper identification or show leniency for such transgression and delinquency; and whether the report submitted by the Committee headed by Professor Sukha Deo Thorat (known ...
D.N. Kalia Vs. R.N. Kalia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
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 appeal is filed by the appellant for setting aside the judgment dated 27th October, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the suit filed against him by his brother( the respondent herein) for a decree of possession and mesne profits in respect of one room and a bathroom on the ground floor of house no. E-28, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi(hereinafter to be referred to as the house in dispute and which house was claimed by the respondent to be his self- acquired property) has been decreed and the counter-claim of the appellant-defendant for a decree of partition of the house in dispute on the ground that it was a joint family property has been rejected.2. The respondent-plaintiff(who shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff) had filed the suit against his brot...
Dharminder @ Dharma and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
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. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.10.1998, the appellants Dharminder and Mahesh have been convicted for the offence of having murdered Sudhir (herein after referred to as the "deceased"), for which offence they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine in sum of `1,000/- each; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. Criminal law was set into motion at around 02.45 A.M. on 01.01.1996 when DD entry No.60B, Ex.PW-12/E, was recorded by Const.Jai Narain PW-16, to the effect that Const.Suresh Chand has informed from AIIMS over telephone that Sudhir S/o Ambika R/o I/271 Ansari Nagar who was injured in a fight at AIIMS campus has been admitted in the hospital by his father.3. On receiving a copy of the afore-noted DD entry, ASI Iqbal Singh PW-17, accompanied by Const.Sur...
Procter and Gamble Company Vs. Joy Creators and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
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 permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up of the infringing material. The plaintiff is a fortune 500 company, having business operations in 80 countries, dealing in a large number of products and employing 1,38,000/- persons. The plaintiff company is also engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling skin care and personal cleansing products, including anti-aging moisturizer under the trademark OLAY. The plaintiff company is also using the trademarks OLAY TOTAL EFFECTS and TOTAL EFFECTS in respect of anti-aging products. The plaintiff holds registration in respect of trademark OLAY TOTAL EFFECTS in Class 3 of Schedule 4 of Trademarks Act, 1999 in respect of Foundation, Make-up Base, Skin Moisturizing Cream, Lotions and Gels, Skin Whitening Preparations, Fa...
Radesh Singh and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
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. After investigation in FIR No.248 of 2008, the police filed a charge-sheet keeping the petitioners herein in Column No.2 as the persons not charge-sheeted and not arrested. However, vide order dated 10th September 2009, the learned MM took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to all the accused persons for their appearance on 7th January 2010. The said order is assailed by the petitioners on the ground that the learned MM had not given reasons for summoning them despite the fact that the police had not found evidence against them and not charge-sheeted them. It is submitted that if the learned MM wanted to summon the accused persons, not charge-sheeted by the police, the learned MM was supposed to give reasons. Reliance is place on Neelam Suri v State 2008 (1) JCC 593 and J.L. Goel v. Rajesh Kumar Jain 2010 (7) AD...
Dabur India Limited Vs. Vishwa Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
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 in the Digest? No 1. This application has been filed by the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 seeking a direction to the respondent to effect necessary change in its records thereby recording change of name of ownership in respect of Flat No. 201 to 207, Pragati Chambers, Plot No. A-5 & A-6, Community Centre, Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi, in favour of the petitioner.2. In the year 2006, a Scheme of Amalgamation was made between Balsara Hygiene Products Limited, Besta Cosmetic Limited, Balsara Home Products Limited (hereinafter collectively referred to as the transferor companies) and Dabur India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferee company), the petitioner herein. In respect of the transferor companies, the said Scheme was approved Co. Appln. No. 1054/2008 in by the Bombay High Court dated ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »