Delhi Court April 2013 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.
Merck Sharp and Dohme Corporation and anr Vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:5. h April, 2013. % + CS(OS) 586/2013 MERCK SHARP AND DOHME CORPORATION & ANR .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Praveen Anand, Mr. Dhruv Anand, Ms. Udita & Mr. D. Sreekumar, Advocate. Versus GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD ..... Defendant Through: Mr. A.M. Singhvi, Mr. Rajeev Nayar and Mr. Rajeev Virmani, Sr. Advocates with Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Ms. Saya Choudhry, Mr. Varun Tikmani, Ms. Anusuya Mehrotra and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J I.A. No.5167/2013 (of plaintiffs u/O 3.R-1 & 2 CPC) 1. The plaintiffs in this suit for injunction restraining infringement of patent and for other ancillary reliefs, seek interim relief restraining the defendant from making, use, selling, distributing, advertising, offering for sale and in any other manner dealing in any product infringing the plaintiffs patent.2. It is the case of the plaintif...
Pushp Steels and Mining Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S.K. Sarawagi and Co Ltd. and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + RESERVED ON:28. 05.2012 PRONOUNCED ON:05. 04.2013 LPA 592/2010 PUSHP STEELS & MINING PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tejas Karia, Mr. Devansh Mohta, Mr. Nitesh Jain and Ms. Bahaar Dhawan, Advocates. versus S.K. SARAWAGI & CO LTD. & ORS. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishi Agrawal, Mr. Akshay Ringe, Ms. Malvika Lal and Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Advocate for Resp-1. Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sapna Chauhan and Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Atul Jha with Mr. Sandeep Jha and Mr. Mehernaz Mehta, Advocates for State of Chhatisgarh/Resp-3. LPA 181/2011 STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Atul Jha with Mr. Sandeep Jha and Mr. Mehernaz Mehta, Advocates. versus S.K. SARAWAGI & CO LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishi Agrawal, Mr. Akshay Ringe, LPA 592/2010 & 181/2011 Page 1 Ms. Malvik...
M/S Kulbhushan Wadhwa Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: April 05, 2013 + Arb.P.No.118/2013 M/S KULBHUSHAN WADHWA ..... Petitioner Through Mr.M.S.Ahluwalia, Adv. versus GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAY & ANR ..... Respondents Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) 1. By this order, I propose to decide the present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-firm is a proprietorship firm and is a Railway contractor for the last several years. The respondents invited the tenders for work named Prividing washable apron for platform line No.1 at ROK at DLI-BTI Section. The petitioner submitted its tender vide quotation along with the earnest money deposit of `1,17,000/- in the form of FDR. The said work was awarded to the petitioner vide acceptance letter No.128-W/260/302/08-09/W-IV in December, 2008. The d...
S.F.T.B. Control Workers??? Association Vs. Delhi Tapedic Unmulan Sami ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No.1743/2012 5th April, 2013 S.F.T.B. CONTROL WORKERS ASSOCIATION ...... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikram Saini and Ms. Vivya Nagpal, Advocates. VERSUS DELHI TAPEDIC UNMULAN SAMITI ...... Respondent Through: Ms. Sujata Kashyap and Mr. Bakul Jain, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advocate for Mr. Amit Khemka, Advocate for R-2. Mr. K.P.Mavi, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is filed by the association of the workers of the respondent no.1/employer/Delhi Tapedic Unmulan Samiti. In the writ petition, the petitioner-association claims the benefit of implementation of the circular of the respondent no.1 dated 6.5.2011 with respect to Employees Provident Fund benefits and Employee State Insurance benefits. These benefits are given under the Employees Provident Funds Act and Scheme 1952 and Employees State Insurance Act, 1948....
MohsIn Alias Moti Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CRL.A. 649/2011 Reserved on:4. h February, 2013 Decided on:5. h April, 2013 BAHADUR SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. R.S. Rai, Adv. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr.Mukesh Gupta, APP. CRL.A. 552/2011 MOHSIN alias MOTI Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Pradeep Teotia, Adv. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr.Mukesh Gupta, APP. CRL.A. 1136/2011 MOHD. SAHID Through: ..... Appellant Ms.Nandita Rao, Adv. Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Mukesh Gupta, APP. versus STATE Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 By these appeals, the Appellants impugn the judgment dated 4th March, 2011 whereby they have been convicted for offences punishable under Section 394/34 IPC, 457/34 IPC and 411 IPC and in addition Appellants Mohsin and Bahadur were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. As per the order on sentence dated 11 th March, 2011 Appellant Mohd. Shahid was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and t...
M/S Minar Travels India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jupiter Luxury Resorts and Spa a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
F-8 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2016/2008 M/S MINAR TRAVELS INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. D.D. Singh, Advocate. versus JUPITER LUXURY RESORTS AND SPA & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: None. Date of Decision:05. h April, 2013. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral): I.A. 5127/2010 in CS(OS) 2016/2008 Learned counsel for plaintiff/applicant wishes to withdraw the present application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as withdrawn. CS(OS) 2016/2008 1. Present suit has been filed with the following prayers:A) A decree of Rs.36,13,913.50 PS/- (Rs. Thirty Six Lacs Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred & paisa Fifty Only) be passed in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendants. B) Interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing the present suit till its realization may also be awarded to the plaintiff company and against the defendants. C) 2. Cost of the suit be also passed/awarded to the plaintiff company and against th...
Rajender Kumar Sharma and anr. Vs. Ashwani Goyal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.2265/2010 Date of Decision:05. 04.2013 RAJENDER KUMAR SHARMA & ANR. Through: Plaintiffs Mr.S.S. Jauhar, Adv. Versus ASHWANI GOYAL & ANR. Through: Defendants Mr. Rakesh Mukhija, Adv. CORAM :HONBLE MR.JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(Oral) Review Petition No.524/2010 1. This review application has been pending for a very long time as it got adjourned for one reason or the other. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the order dated 9th November, 2010 of which the review is sought.2. The contention of learned counsel for the parties can be appreciated only when the facts are given in brief. The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance in respect of a property bearing No.3096, situated at Mohalla CS(OS) No.2265/2010 Page 1 of 6 Dussan, Charkhewalan, Delhi measuring 130 sq. yds., claiming that the defendants had agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.55 lakhs, out of which, a...
Rpg Cellular Investment and Holdings (P) Ltd and anr Vs. Assistant Com ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:05. 04.2013 W.P.(C) 8645/2011 & CM 19553/2011 RPG CELLULAR INVESTMENT & HOLDINGS (P) LTD & ANR ... Petitioners versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANR ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Somnath Shukla for Mr Ajay Vohra For the Respondents : Mr Abhishek Maratha with Ms Anshul Sharma CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 30.03.2011 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 15(1), New Delhi under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) seeking to re-open the assessment of the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 2004-05 on the allegation that income had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the said Act.2. The purported reason for initiating the proceedings under...
Bahadur Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CRL.A. 649/2011 Reserved on:4. h February, 2013 Decided on:5. h April, 2013 BAHADUR SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. R.S. Rai, Adv. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr.Mukesh Gupta, APP. CRL.A. 552/2011 MOHSIN alias MOTI Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Pradeep Teotia, Adv. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr.Mukesh Gupta, APP. CRL.A. 1136/2011 MOHD. SAHID Through: ..... Appellant Ms.Nandita Rao, Adv. Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Mukesh Gupta, APP. versus STATE Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 By these appeals, the Appellants impugn the judgment dated 4th March, 2011 whereby they have been convicted for offences punishable under Section 394/34 IPC, 457/34 IPC and 411 IPC and in addition Appellants Mohsin and Bahadur were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. As per the order on sentence dated 11 th March, 2011 Appellant Mohd. Shahid was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and t...
D.D.A. Vs. M/S Prominent Electrical Works and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
$~A2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:5th April 2013 % + CM No. 11151/2012(for review) and 11152/2012 (for delay) in FAO No. 62/1995 D.D.A. Through ..... Appellant Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. for DDA. versus M/S PROMINENT ELECTRICAL WORKS AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1. By way of this application (CM No. 11151/2012) the appellant seeks a review of the order dated 31.10.2011. Alongwith this application, an application (CM No. 11152/2012) seeking condonation of delay of 180 days in preferring this review petition has been filed.2. Notice has been served of the review application as also of the application for condonation of delay upon the respondent who stood duly served. None has appeared for the respondent.3. A perusal of the application seeking condonoation of delay shows that it is bereft of any particulars. No explanation let alone a justifiable explanation has been given for the inordi...
- ‹ Prev
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- Next ›
- Last »