Delhi Court February 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Uoi and Others Vs. Jor Bagh Asscn. Regd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. LPA No.415/2005 lays a challenge to the judgment and order dated 9.7.2004 pronounced by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing WP(C) No.1458/1984, in which writ petition, of the 4 prayers made, only first 3 were pressed during arguments and in respect whereof 3 reliefs were granted. The 3 prayers which were pressed read as under:- “(a) Grant a writ, direction or order in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from recovering/levying damages on the properties of the petitioners without any authority of law; (b) Grant a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disclose the principle/basis on which such damages are levied. (c) To declare the respondents cannot impose penalty under the garb of regularization charges.” 2. The 3 directions issued by the learned Single Judge read as under:- “(i) The alleged unauthorized construction in respect of the lease-hold property belonging to the petitioner No.17 cannot now be ...
Hero Honda Motors Limited Vs. Rafiq Memon
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, delivery up, rendition of accounts etc. against the defendant. While issuing summons in the suit and notice in the application for stay on 21.12.2010 this court had restrained the defendants, its agents, distributors and / or any other persons acting for and on behalf of the defendant, from selling motorcycle parts bearing the trade mark HERO HONDA with or without the logo or any other trade mark and/or logo which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade mark HERO HONDA and/or logo as also the product packaging of the plaintiff.2. The defendants were proceeded ex parte by an order dated 27.07.2011. Plaintiff has filed the affidavit by way of evidence of Ms.Purnima Dogra, Assistant Manager (Constituted Attorney of plaintiff company). The affidavit by way of evidence has been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A. She has deposed on the lines of the plain...
Ms. Anvita Singh Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 1. The petitioner herein is an M.Sc. which degree she has obtained from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi. The petitioner claims that she has been remained involved in the work related to patent, drafting, filing and prosecuting application for grant of patent registration by the Patent Office under the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and has vast experience. However, she has not been able to get herself registered as Patent Agent under the Act because her repeated attempts to pass qualifying examination for Patent Agents have remained unsuccessful. This qualifying exam is in two parts, namely, written test and viva voce examination. Though she has exhibited excellent performance in so far as written test is concerned, as she has not been able to secure minimum 50% marks in the viva voce examination, which is the requirement of Rule 110 of the Patents Rules, she is treated as unqualified. It is for this...
Bal Kishan Arora Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) Crl. M.A. 2629/2012 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.Crl. M.C. 748/2012 1. Notice issued.2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of State/R1.3. Respondent no. 2 is personally present in the court.4. With the consent of the ld. Counsel for parties, instant petition is taken for final disposal.5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submit that vide FIR no.617 dated 22.11.2007, case under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent no. 2 at PS-Moti Nagar.6. It is further submitted that a compromise has been arrived at between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, thereby settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners.7. It is further submitted that consequent to the settlement, marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has been dissolved vide Decree of Divorce dated 13.05.2011. Thus, respondent no. 2 is no more...
Dolly Kapoor and Another Vs. Sher Singh Yadav and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
JUDGMENTRAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. This Intra-Court appeal impugns the order dated 23rd August, 2011 of the Learned Single Judge refusing to issue notice of and dismissing Cont. Cas(C) No.219/2011 (filed by the appellants) arising out of order dated 5th September, 2008 of this Court in CM(M) No.958/2008 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India preferred by the appellants. Since Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides for an appeal to this Bench only when the decision of the Single Judge is to punish for contempt and not when the decision is to dismiss the contempt petition, we have at the outset enquired from the counsel for the appellant as to how the present appeal is maintainable.2. The counsel for the appellant has contended that this appeal is preferred not under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act but under the Letters Patent of this Court. Our attention has been invited to Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda (2006) 5 SCC 399.3. We...
Ms. Rohini Damji Sidpra Vs. Sh. Som Prakash Yadav
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.22,10,000/- together with interest @18%, per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till realization.2. Upon service of summons, defendant entered appearance and also filed written statement. Since, none appeared on behalf of the defendant on 13.1.2009, the defendant was proceeded ex parte on 13.1.2009. Liberty was granted to the plaintiff to file ex parte evidence and the matter was placed before Joint Registrar for marking exhibits on documents. Plaintiff has filed her ex parte evidence by way of affidavit, which is Exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A. In the affidavit, the plaintiff has deposed on the lines of the plaint.3. In the affidavit, the plaintiff has deposed that in January, 1976, she was allotted an Industrial Shed bearing No.185 in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi, by Delhi State Industrial Development (DSIDC). InFebruary, 2007, the defendant desired his intention ...
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Vs. Haryana Telecom Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. Pertaining to supply of cables the respondent was bound by the General Conditions of Contract and vide condition No.4, under the caption ‘Performance Security’, was obliged to furnish ‘The Performance Security Bond’ in the form of a bank guarantee issued by a Scheduled Bank as per proforma provided in Section IX of the bid documents. 2. The proforma of the Security Bond, relevant part, reads as under: ‘In consideration of the President of India (hereinafter called the Government) having agreed to exempt ____ (hereinafter called the contractor) from the demand under the terms and conditions of an agreement/(Purchase Order) No._______________ dated _______ made between ______ and _________ for _________ for the supply of ______ (hereinafter called the said agreement) of security deposit for the due fulfillment by the said contractor of the terms and conditions contained in the said agreement on production of a bank guarantee f...
Shely Devgan Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) Crl. M.A. 2610/2012 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.Crl. M.C. 739/2012 1. Notice issued.2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.3. Respondent no. 2 and 3 are present in person.4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR no. 177 dated 24.10.2011, case under Sections 279/304A Indian Penal Code,1860 was registered against the petitioner at PS-Baba Hari Dass Nagar.5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent no. 2 is the complainant / informant of the FIR mentioned above and respondent no. 3 is the wife of the deceased Praful, who died in the accident on 24.10.2011.6. It is further submitted that petitioner is the brother–in–law of respondent no. 3, in other words, deceased and the petitioner were co-brothers. Therefore, respondent no. 3 wife of the deceased has compromised all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR vide compromise deed dated 24.02.2012.7. Ld....
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Shri Chand Naran Jasuja and Ano ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
JUDGMENTG. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appellant Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. seeks reduction of compensation of `32,72,800/- awarded for the death of Narender Kumar who died in a motor accident which occurred on 16.12.2009.2. The sole contention raised on behalf of the Appellant is that a sum of 762/- towards transport allowance and a sum of `60/- towards washing allowance were personal allowances incidental to the deceased’s employment. They should have been deducted from the deceased’s salary while computing the loss of dependency.3. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 6 that the overall compensation cannot be said to be excessive. It is urged that a sum of ` 10,000/- was awarded towards the loss of love and affection and if the compensation is suitably raised under this head, it would come to almost the same amount.4. The Appeal must succeed on both the counts.5. Loss of love and affection can never be measured in ter...
Dr. Sahadeva Singh Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.01.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby Original Application No. 2125/2005, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. The facts relevant for this petition can be summarized as follows:-The petitioner before this Court was promoted as Assistant Commissioner (Crops) w.e.f. 29.06.1999. The next higher post, to which the petitioner could be considered for promotion, was of Deputy Commissioner (Crops). The Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Commissioner (Crops) provided that an Assistant Commissioner (Crops) with five years regular service in the grade and possessing Degree in Agriculture and Postgraduate Degree in Agriculture with specialization in Agronomy/Plant Breeding and Genetics from a recognized university or equivalent, could be promoted to the grade of Deputy Commissioner (Crops). Two posts of Depu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »