Delhi Court May 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.
Tata Sons Limited Vs. Atul Tiwari and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
A.K. PATHAK, J. (ORAL) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from infringing the registered trademark of plaintiff, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc. Plaintiff has filed this suit through its constituted attorney Mr. V. Gurumoorthi. 2. It is alleged that plaintiff was established in the year 1917 as a body corporate. Plaintiff is a principal investment holding company of the “Tata Group”, which is India’s oldest, largest and best known conglomerate with turnover of over Rs. 251,543.00 crores during the financial year 2007-08. Plaintiff is one of India’s most trusted business houses and the name as well as trademark “TATA”, which is derived from the surname of the founder Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata, is a household name synonymous with excellence in almost every field of business activity. Since its inception in the year 1917, plaintiff has been continuously and consi...
Shri Santu Vs. Gaon Sabha Gadaipur and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. Oral: 1. This case is on the Regular Board of this Court since 21.2.2012. No one is present for the parties although it is 12.45 P.M. I have, therefore, perused the record and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal. 2. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 1.7.2004 dismissing the suit for injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff. The suit pertains to a property admeasuring 2.5 biswa, i.e. 125 sq. yds., situated in khasra No. 512/1, Village Gadaipur, Tehsil Mehruali, New Delhi. Before proceeding further, I may note that defendants were ex parte in the trial Court. No written statement was filed on their behalf. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents/defendants, yet the trial Court dismissed the suit. 3. The trial Court has made the following observations for dismissing the suit:- “13. I am of the opinion that even ...
Mrs. Laxmi Devi Vs. Shri Mahavir Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. Oral: 1. This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment of the trial Court dated 20.4.2011 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff filed for specific performance of the agreement dated 20.9.2007 with respect to the property admeasuring 200 sq. yds. situated in Khasra No.32, Janta Vihar-II, village Mukand Pur, Delhi-42 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’). 2. The facts of the case are that the parties, the appellant/defendant as the proposed seller and the respondent/plaintiff (a property dealer by profession) as the proposed buyer entered into an agreement to sell dated 20.9.2007 with respect to the suit property. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.5,60,000/- of which a sum of Rs.1 lakh was paid in cash to the appellant/defendant. The respondent/plaintiff claimed that the balance consideration was to be paid by 20.12.2007 but the appellant/defendant failed to ...
National Instt. of Technology Trust Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J. 1. This appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 impugns the order dated 23rd January, 2012 of the learned Company Judge dismissing Co.Appl. No.732/2008 and Co.Appl. No.341/2009 preferred by the appellant in Co. Pet. No.75/2002, for winding up of M/s Koshika Telecom Ltd. 2. The petition for winding up of M/s Koshika Telecom Ltd. was filed on 8th February, 2002, Provisional Liquidator was appointed and the final winding up order passed on 2nd August, 2005. 3. The appellant claims to have entered into an agreement dated 30th September, 2002 with the Company in liquidation for purchase of land ad-measuring 30,350 sq. ft. situated at Microware Tower, Hardoi Road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, of the Company in liquidation. Co.Appl. No.732/2008 was filed by the appellant for direction to the Official Liquidator to release the said land and to execute Sale Deed in respect thereof in favour of the appellant; alternatively permission to file a suit for specific perfo...
Dinesh Singh and Another Vs. Rama Nand Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
G.P. MITTAL, J. ORAL: 1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs.10,54,500/- awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Rupesh Kumar, who died in a motor accident which took place on 01.09.2008. 2. The deceased was B.Sc. (Hons.) and held a Postgraduate Diploma in Management. He was employed as a Relationship Manager with India Bulls Securities Limited. He was earning a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- per annum and was confirmed by a Confirmation letter dated 07.09.2006. 3. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:- (i) The future prospects were not considered inspite of the fact that he was a highly qualified person and was in permanent employment. (ii) The multiplier should have been ‘11’instead of ‘9’as per the age of the deceased’s mother who was 55 years. 4. The Claims Tribunal on the question of the assessment of loss of dependency held as under:- “12. The income of the deceased is taken...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Anara Devi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. ORAL: 1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. impugns a judgment dated 11.02.2002 whereby a compensation of `3,58,500/- was awarded in favour of the Respondents No.1 to 6 for the death of the deceased Shitla Prasad Shukla who died in a motor accident which occurred on 13.01.1995. 2. The ground of challenge is that the cover note Ex.RW1/A in respect of the offending vehicle bus No.DBP-906 was fraudulently obtained after the accident and the Insurance Company had no liability to pay the compensation. 3. It is the admitted case of the parties that the cover note Ex.RW1/A was issued on 13.09.1994 i.e. on the date of the accident. The amount of compensation was released to the Claimants by an order of this Court dated 26.04.2002 and 15.09.2003. Thus, what is required to be seen in the instant Appeal is whether the cover note was fraudulently obtained and if the Appellant Insurance Company is entitled to recovery rights against the Respondent No.8, owner of the offendin...
Harish and Another Vs. Lt. Governor, Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.10.2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (herein after referred to as „the Tribunal‟), whereby OA 4182/2010 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioners were appointed as part-time vocational teachers in terms of a Scheme of the Government introduced in the year 1977-78, purely on contingent basis. The terms and conditions of their appointment indicated that the appointment could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason/notice. It was further stipulated that the appointment would not entitle them to any regular job under the Directorate of Education. The remuneration payable to them was fixed at Rs.80/- per hour for theory classes and Rs.50/- per hour for subjective classes, subject to maximum of Rs.2,000/- per month. The remuneration payable to the petitioners was later increased by Rs.3,500/- (consolidated) revised per month, subject...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Natraj Construction Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (ORAL) 1. The appellant / MCD invited tenders for the work of providing and fixing reflective sign board on Hawaldar Abdul Hameed Marg, Shakurpur near F block Shakurpur in JJ Colony, C-29, Delhi. The work order was placed on the respondent on 31.03.2004 with the contractual amount being specified at Rs.3,16,899/-. The work was to be completed within three months and the earnest money of Rs.7550/- was deposited by the respondent with the appellant. 2. It appears that the respondent was awarded the work order for similar work in different areas including on Mah. Balmiki Marg near E Block, Shakarpur, which was in proximity to the place of the work order in question. It is the say of the respondent that at the insistence of the Local councillor, the official of the appellant directed the respondent to put both the sign boards at Maharishi Balmiki Marg near E Block itself, resulting in change of location and even the RCC foundation made at the original place being wa...
Naib Subedar Rahamat Khan Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J 1. The petitioner, a Naib Subedar in the Indian Army, has sought a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of Regimental Headquarter Inter Office Note of 112 Engineer Regiment dated 20th March, 2012 holding that the petitioner cannot be considered for inclusion in Board Proceedings for UN Mission, as the Board of Officer has already finalized on 21st January, 2012 the names of the persons who have to proceed on the United Nation Mission which has also been counter signed by the GOC 9th Infantry Division by order dated 27th January, 2012. The petitioner has also sought direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to join the team selected for UN Mission for Sudan, as being qualified and 8th in the order of merit as per merit list attached with the writ petition. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been discriminated and favouritism has been shown by the respondents in selecting the persons for UN Mission at Sudan, as the petitioner, a Naib Subedar, has be...
Anil Bhambri Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 15.11.2011 rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial Court refused to give the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the period spent by the appellant/plaintiff in pursuing the proceedings for similar relief in the Consumer Forum, Delhi. The subject suit was filed for declaration, challenging the electricity bill issued by the respondent/defendant for `8,27,760/- in respect of K No. 33400951708 located at 18A/2, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Naraina, New Delhi. 2. The appellant/plaintiff had approached the District Consumer Forum in New Delhi to challenge the bill where he has deposited a sum of `2,50,000/-, however, the Consumer Forum dismissed the petition as withdrawn because the appellant/plaintiff ...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »