Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
M/S C-1 India Pvt Ltd Vs. E-procurement Technologies Ltd and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IA Nos. 19108/2012, 9821/2010 & 10333/2010 in CS(OS) 1514/2010 Reserved on:20. h November, 2013 Decided on:6. h January, 2014 % M/S C-1 INDIA PVT LTD Through ..... Plaintiff Mr. Muneesh Malhotra, Mr. Vikram V. Minhaj, Advs. versus E-PROCUREMENT TECHNOLOGIES LTD & ANR .... Defendant Through Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Advs. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 The plaintiff which is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 has filed the present suit against the defendants, inter alia, praying for restraining them from infringing the plaintiffs copyright in e-tendering solution and from marketing, publishing, producing, distributing, selling and publicly releasing or dealing with the said software in any manner whatsoever. The defendant No.1 is also a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and defendant No.2 is the Chief Operating Officer (in short COO) of the defendant No.1 whereas...
Tag this Judgment!Darshan Panjali Vs. Raj Dulari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: January 06, 2014 + RC. Rev. No.147/2013 & C.M. No.6148/2013 DARSHAN PANJALI Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Randhir Jain, Adv. with Ms.Ruchika Jain, Adv. versus RAJ DULARI Through ..... Respondent Mr.Dalip Anand, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the eviction order dated 23rd January, 2013 passed against the petitioner by the ARC (North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in respect of one room situated in the property bearing No.147, Katra Mashru, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted premises).2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are that the tenanted premises was let out for residential purpose to the petitioner orally in the year 1973 by the husband of the res...
Tag this Judgment!Mahtab and ors. Vs. Abdul Wahid
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: January 06, 2014 + RC. Rev. No.22/2013 & C.M. No.719/2013 MAHTAB & ORS Through ..... Petitioners Mr.R.L. Kohli, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Varun Yadav and Ms.Shikha Goyal, Advs. versus ABDUL WAHID Through ..... Respondent Mr.Vijay Tandon, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioners by way of the present petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have assailed the eviction order dated 29th September 2012 passed by Additional Rent Controller, Central, Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed an eviction petition against the petitioners in respect of the first floor of the property bearing No.2390, Kucha Mir Hashim, Turkman Gate, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted property).3. In the eviction petition, it was averred that the respondent is the owner of the property bearing No.2390, Kucha Mir Hashim...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Kumar Vs. Janak Rani Sawhney
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: January 06, 2014 + RC. Rev. No.108/2013 & C.M. No.7287/2013 SANJAY KUMAR Through ..... Petitioner Mr.S.S.Dahiya, Adv. with Mr.L.K.Dahiya, Adv. versus JANAK RANI SAWHNEY Through ..... Respondent Mr.N.N.Aggarwal, Adv. with Ms.Jaya Goyal, Ms.Manpreet Kaur & Mr.Varun Garg, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the two orders dated 29th May, 2012 and 28th January, 2013.2. The first order dated 29th May, 2012 was passed against the petitioner whereby his application for leave to defend in the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord being RC No.03/12 was dismissed. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing of the review petition under Section 114 CPC being Misc. No.10/2012. The same was also dismissed by the second order dated 28th January, 2013.3. The tenanted shop was originally let out by the fat...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sarika JaIn and ors. Vs. Saran Singh Chhabra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: January 06, 2014 + RC.REV. 103/2012 & CM No.4122/2012 SMT SARIKA JAIN & ORS Through ..... Petitioners Mr.Ajay Veer Singh, Adv. with Ms.Divya Garg, Adv. versus SARAN SINGH CHHABRA Through ..... Respondent Mr.Mahesh K. Chaudhary, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioners by way of the present petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has assailed the eviction order dated 22nd December, 2011 passed by Additional Rent Controller, North, Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioners in respect of a shop bearing No.52-A, Kucha Sukha Nand, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted shop) on the ground of bonafide requirement of expansion of business for himself, his son and grandson. It was stated that the respondent and his son started the b...
Tag this Judgment!Yadvinder Kaur Vs. Guru Nanak Public School and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:06. 01.2014 + W.P.(C) 4807/2013 YADVINDER KAUR ..... PETITIONER Versus GURU NANAK PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR ..... RESPONDENTS ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Chhabra, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Mithlesh Kumar, Advocate for R-1 Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Adv. for R-2 CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 Mr. Kumar appears on behalf of respondent no.1 while Ms. Maheshwari appears on behalf of respondent no.2.2. Notice in this petition was issued on 30.07.2013. The returnable date fixed on that date was 11.10.2013. On 11.10.2013, both the respondents were represented. The respondents were given six (6) weeks to file a counter affidavit. To date, counter affidavits have not been filed by the respondents. Opportunity is sought, once again, by both counsels to file their counter affidavits.3. It is noticed that the only prayer made in the writ petition is : that the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Chug Vs. Opender Nath Ahuja and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: January 06, 2014 + RC.REV. 100/2013 & CM No.4013/2013 SANJAY CHUG ..... Petitioner Through Mr.T.L. Garg, Adv. versus OPENDER NATH AHUJA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr.Rajsh Bhatia, Adv. with Mr.Hitesh Khanna, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has assailed the eviction order dated 29th November, 2012 passed by Additional Rent Controller, West Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in respect of a shop situated at the ground floor of property bearing No.11/21, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi- 110008 (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted shop). It was contended that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by Late Sh. Kishan Chand i.e. father of the respondent No.1 and father in-law o...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Sons Limited Vs. Gina Kilindo and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: January 06, 2014 + CS(OS) No.46/2014 TATA SONS LIMITED Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Pravin Anand, Adv. with Mr.Achuthan Sreekumar & Mr.Karan Kamra, Advs. versus GINA KILINDO & ORS Through ..... Defendants None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) I.A. No.266/2014 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of. I.A. No.267/2014 (u/s 148 CPC) This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 148 CPC seeking time to file the deficient Court fee. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff undertakes to file the court fee within four days. Let the same be done within four days. In view of the above, the application stands disposed of. CS(OS) No.46/2014 Issue summons to the defendants, on filing of process fee and Regd. A.D. Covers within ten days, returnable on 21st March, 2014. Dasti in addition. I.A. No.265/2014 (for stay) 1. Iss...
Tag this Judgment!M/S R.M.Enterprises Vs. Shri Radhey Sham Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.5/2014 & CM No.126/2014 (Stay) % 6th January, 2014 M/S R.M.ENTERPRISES Through: ......Appellant Mr. Amarjit Singh Gambhir, Adv. VERSUS SHRI RADHEY SHAM GUPTA Through: ...... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC impugns the order of the Trial court dated 26.9.2013 by which the application of the appellant/applicant/defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 29.7.2002 was dismissed. The suit was a suit filed for recovery of money for goods supplied.2. The court below has dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC by giving the following findings:(i) Appellant/defendant claimed that it/he was not served in the suit, but that factum was incorrect because the registered cover of service in the suit came back with the report on 25.5.2002 that on 21...
Tag this Judgment!Tarun Singhal Vs. Devender Kumar and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI I.A. No.14157/2013 in CS (OS) 1722/2013 Reserved on:26. h November, 2013 Decided on:6. h January, 2014 % TARUN SINGHAL Through: Versus DEVENDER KUMAR & ORS Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. N.S. Dalal, Advocate. ..... Defendants Mr. D.K. Rustagi and Mr. B.S. Bagga, Advocates for Defendant Nos. 3 and 4. None for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 By this application the Plaintiff seeks interim injunction against the Defendants restraining them from dispossessing the Plaintiff from the portion measuring 200 sq. yards as shown in red colour in the site plan of the suit property and also restraining the Defendants, their agents etc. from raising any further construction over a portion measuring 100 sq. yards as shown in colour yellow in the site plan forming part of the suit property till the disposal of the suit.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff that the Defendant No.1 Devender Singh in his compl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- Next ›
- Last »