Delhi Court April 2012 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. Aravali International Vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
REVA KHETRAPAL, J 1. The aforementioned suit is filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs.23,73,364.38 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Seventy Three Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Four and Paise Thirty Eight Only) together with costs and interest thereon premised on a Bank Guarantee issued by the defendants, whereby the defendants unconditionally bound themselves to make the payment as mentioned in the Bank Guarantee to the plaintiff in the event of non-performance of export obligations by a third party. 2. Briefly the facts may be delineated as follows. 3. On 19th April, 1994, M/s. Chittagong Cement Clinkers and Grinding Co. Ltd., South Halisher, Chittagong (hereinafter referred to as “M/s. Chittagong”) entered into an agreement for the supply of 25,000 Metric Ton of cement clinkers with the plaintiff. On the same date, i.e., on 19th April, 1994, M/s. Chittagong entered into another agreement with M/s. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., Hansalaya, 15 Bar...
Hawkins Cookers Ltd. Vs. Murugan Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J 1. The appellant is the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘HAWKINS’in respect of pressure cookers and parts thereof, including gaskets, falling under Class-21 of the erstwhile Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958. Who has not heard about ‘Hawkins’Pressure Cookers? It is a well known brand. 2. The grievance relates to the respondent, M/s.Murugan Enterprises, manufacturing and selling gaskets under the trademark ‘MAYUR’; but on the packaging material printing: ‘Suitable for : Hawkins Pressure Cookers’. 3. Whereas the words ‘suitable for’and ‘Pressure Cookers’are printed in black colour, the word ‘Hawkins’is printed in red colour and thus it is apparent that the intention is that the word ‘Hawkins’catches the eye. 4. The appellant alleges that by so writing on the packaging material, the respondent is infringing upon its registered trademark. It is the case of th...
Flora Exports Vs. Impex-trading Gmbh and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner, Flora Exports, challenges an Award dated 16th June 2010 passed by the sole Arbitrator (Respondent No.2) in the disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 M/s Impex Trading GmbH, Germany (Impex) arising out of a contract entered into between the parties on 2nd February 2006 for supply of 100% cotton throws by the Petitioner to Impex. 2. Impex is a company registered in Germany and has its office at Gronau, Germany. The Petitioner is a partnership firm based in Panipat engaged in the business of exports of 100% cotton throws. Under the contract in question, the Petitioner was to supply Impex by 30th April 2006 at Ex-Bombay Port on CFR basis, 56,712 pieces of cotton throws in 9452 boxes. The goods were to be transported by a sea going vessel from Bombay to Rotterdam through Maersk Line (India) Pvt. Ltd. Further, the goods were to be taken by container trucks from Rotterdam to the warehouse of the Respondent No.1 at Greven, Germany under the supervi...
Sh. Massod Ahmed Khan and Others Vs. Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf)/Hamdard ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
1. The six petitioners impugn the award dated 13th July, 1989 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference- “Whether the services of Shri Masood Ahmad, Shakeel Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad, Salar Bux, Mohd. Zakir Qureshi and Bhagat Singh have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?” and holding the respondent no.3 M/s Hamdard Research Clinic and Nursing Home (HRC Nursing Home) having effected „closure‟and further holding HRC Nursing Home to be not part and parcel of respondent no.2 M/s Hamdard National Foundation (India) (Foundation) or respondent no.5 M/s Majidia Hospital (Hospital) or respondent no. 4 M/s Institute of History of Medicine and Medical Research (Institute) and finding the petitioners to be entitled only to compensation as provided under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 minus the amount already received. The petitioners also see...
Richard Fernandes and Others Vs. Laila Kabir Fernandes and Antoher
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J I.A. No.272/2012 1. The four plaintiffs, namely, Richard Fernandes, Aloysious Fernandes, Michael Fernandes and Paul Fernandes who are the brothers of Mr. George Fernandes, have filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the two defendants, namely, Laila Kabir Fernandes - wife and Mr. Sean Fernandes - son, of George Fernandes, inter-alia seeking their right to have unrestricted and complete access to Mr. George Fernandes and to meet, communicate, care and monitor/supervise the medical treatment being provided to him and also for restraining the defendants from taking Mr. George Fernandes outside the territorial borders of India and further for commanding the defendants to take Mr. George Fernandes back to his own house, i.e. 3, Krishna Menon Marg, New Delhi. 2. By order dated 16.03.2010 the defendants were restrained from taking Mr. George Fernandes outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court without the permission of the Court. Th...
Kalinga Power Corporation Ltd Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1. This petition impugns the letter dated 02.07.2003 of the Ministry of Coal, Government of India, de-allocating the “Utkal-A captive coal block for supply of coal to the proposed Duburi Thermal Power Station” of the petitioner. The petition also seeks to restrain the respondents from allotting „the area in question‟to anyone else including the respondent No.5 Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. or to the respondent No.6 Coal India Ltd. (CIL). The petitioner also seeks mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to carry on the development and other activities necessary for the project. Before the notice of this petition could be issued, Jindal Thermal Power Company Ltd. And Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Ltd. applied for impleadment averring that the „coal mine in question‟after de-allocation from the petitioner stood allotted to them and any decision in this petition would affect their rights. They were impleaded as respondents N...
Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. and Others Vs. Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceutical ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J 1. By this order, I shall dispose of the application bearing I.A. No.18464/2011 filed by the defendant seeking stay of the suit under Section 124 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) read with Section 151 CPC. 2. Briefly stated, the defendant has filed this application on the ground that the rectification proceedings initiated by the defendant against the plaintiffs’registration of the trade mark MERONEM are pending disposal. It is stated in the application that the mark MERONEM on the basis of which, the infringement suit is filed is sought to be rectified by the defendants by filing an application for rectification bearing No.94/TM/ Del/2005 pending before IPAB. It is also stated in the application that the plaintiffs have also challenged the validity of the defendant’s trade mark MEROMER by filing similar application before IPAB against the defendant’s registered trade mark and thus, the suit is liable to be ...
The Chief Secretary and Others Vs. Sara Verma and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
M.L. Chauhan: 1. The present review application has been filed by the original respondents pursuant to the order dated 7.2.2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No.1373/2005 whereby the High Court has granted liberty to the respondents / review applicants to file review application against the order dated 14.7.2004 passed by the Full Bench of the Tribunal and order dated 2.9.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the Tribunal whereby the OA was allowed in terms of the reference answered by the Full Bench. 2. It may be stated here that the liberty was granted by the High Court to file review application against the aforesaid order, when the attention of the High Court was drawn to the OMs dated 10.1.1977 and 24.10.1978, which deal with the grant of selection grade to Groups ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees pursuant to the recommendations of 3rd Central Pay Commission, which were accepted by the Government and also deal as to how many percentage of posts is to be tr...
R.S. Malik and Others Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary and Oth ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. This is a joint Application filed by 47 applicants working as Assistants/Office Superintendents/Civilian Gazetted Officer (Administration)/ Senior Civilian Gazetted Officers (Administration) (in short ‘the Asstt./OS/CGO (A)/Sr. CGO (A)’) under respondent’s no.3 to 9 and posted in various units directly under Air Head Quarter (AHQ) and Command Head Quarters (CHQ). They are aggrieved by the respondents action in not granting them non-functional scales i.e. Rs.7450-11500/-, Rs.7500-12000/- and Rs.10000-15200/- (revised) respectively with Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- to the Asstt., Rs.4800/- to the CGO (A) and Rs.6600/- to the Sr. CGO (A). The applicant’s claim is based on parity with their counterparts serving at the Air Force Head Quarter (in short ‘AFHQ’) in terms of the Government of India decisions and on the basis of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission (in short ‘6th CPC’). The applicants ha...
Rakesh Kumar Vs. the Union of India Through the Foreign Secretary/Secr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. Shri Rakesh Kumar, the applicant in the OA, is an Indian Foreign Service (IFS) Officer of 1972 batch. The instant OA is the 3rd round of litigation of the applicant mainly on his grievance against the parallel departmental inquiry initiated in the Charge Memorandum dated 01.04.2008 (Annexure-A1) and seeking the same to be kept in abeyance till the completion of the trial of the applicant in the Criminal Court on the Charge Sheet number 12/2007 dated 24.12.2007 filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI in short) to prosecute him for the offences under Section 120 B of IPC read with Section 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and under Section 13(2) with Sub Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (POC Act), as both are based on same sets of facts, allegations, documents and witnesses. 2. His first visit to the Tribunal was in the OA No.1876/2008 which was decided on 22.12.2009. The Tribunal in the said OA considered the facts ...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »