Delhi Court October 2014 Judgments
Union of India Vs. Suchitra Goswami
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:10. 10.2014 % W.P.(C.) No.6907/2014 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC and Mr. Prashant Ghai, Advocate versus SUCHITRA GOSWAMI Through: .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioner Union of India has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India to assail the order dated 06.05.2014, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, the Tribunal) in O.A. No.3193/2012, whereby the aforesaid original application preferred by the respondent was allowed and the petitioner was directed to consider the respondents case for notional promotion from the dates from which her juniors Arun Kumar and Sanjiv Datta were promoted to the post of Director. The respondent, however, was denied arrears of pay and salary and other attendant benefits. She...
Tag this Judgment!Dlf Home Developers Limited Vs. Competition Commission of India and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6361/2014 DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Senior Advocates with Ms. Kanika Chaudhary Nayar and Ms. Nidhi Singh, Advocates. versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Singh Baghel and Mr. Tahir Siddiqui, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Advocate with Mr. Mansimran Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2/UOI. AND + W.P.(C) 6362/2014 DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Senior Advocates with Ms. Kanika Chaudhary Nayar and Ms. Nidhi Singh, Advocates. versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Singh Baghel and Mr. Tahir Siddiqui, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Advocate with Mr. Mansimran Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2/UO...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Rathi Steel Limited Vs. M/S. S and S Technocrats (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:10. h October, 2014 + IA No.13981/2013 in CS (OS) No.1009/2013 SHRI RATHI STEEL LIMITED Through: ..... Plaintiff Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Advocate Versus M/S. S & S TECHNOCRATS (P) LTD. Through: ..... Defendant Mr. Man Mohan Goel, Advocate with Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL G.P. MITTAL,J.IA No.13981/2013 (O.XXXVII Rule 3 (5) CPC) 1. This is a summary suit for recovery of Rs.55,28,508/- under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).2. The Plaintiffs averments are that the Defendant by a written request dated 15.07.2009 (through fax) placed an order for supply of 99.280 MT TMT bars, as detailed in para 4 of the plaint. The amount payable by the Defendant in respect of 99.280 MT TMT bars was Rs.31,93,421/-. It is averred that the Plaintiff had been orally and in writing requesting the Defendant to make payment of the goods supplied. The Plaintiff again wrote a letter dated 16.11.2009...
Tag this Judgment!Rtc Restaurants (India) Limited Vs. Ruby Tuesday Inc and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:10. h October, 2014 + IA No.1047/2012 (O.XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC) and IA No.7360/2012 (O.XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC) in CS(OS) 137/2012 RTC RESTAURANTS (INDIA) LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Pravir K. Jain, Adv. versus RUBY TUESDAY INC AND ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. H.L. Tikku, Senior counsel with Mr. P.N. Sewak, Adv. & Ms. Shefali Sewak, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL1 The competing claims of the parties have led to the filing of these applications. In IA No.1047/2012, the Plaintiff seeks interim injunction, inter alia,:a. An order for temporary injunction restraining the Defendant/s, their servants, agents, dealers, distributors, stockiest, representatives, retailers and all other persons acting on their behalf from illegally making groundless threats to the applicant with respect to the alleged infringement of and/or passing off the trade mark of the Defendant/s: b. An order for temporary injunction restraini...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kapoor Vs. Shashi Krishan Lal Khanna and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:10. h October, 2014 + IA No.14898/2011 in CS(OS) 236/2010 SURESH KAPOOR Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Virender Goswami, Advocate & Mr. Shubham Agarwal, Advocate versus SHASHI KRISHAN LAL KHANNA & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr. Sangram Patnaik, Advocate & Mr. Vishal Kumar Pandey, Advocate for D-1. Mr. Jiwan Pal Singh, Advocate for D-4 to 8. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL G.P. MITTAL,J.IA No.14898/2011 (Order VII Rule 11 CPC) by Defendant no.1 1. By this application under Order VII Rule 11(c) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Section 7 (iv) (b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 question of valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fee is raised by Defendant no.1.2. The Plaintiff claims 1/9th share in the suit property which was owned by Late Mrs. Gullo Devi Malhotra, maternal grandmother of the Plaintiff. In the application it is stated that the Plaintiff admittedly is not in possession of the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Merck Kgaa and One Another Vs. Hasmukh N Thakkar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:10. h October, 2014 + CS(OS) 2067/2011 MERCK KGAA AND ONE ANOTHER Through: ..... Plaintiffs Mr. Subhash Bhutoria, Advocate with Mr. Anuj Nair, Advocate versus HASMUKH N THAKKAR Through: ..... Defendant Ex-parte CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL G.P. MITTAL,J.1. This suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark and rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up, etc. was filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant with the following prayers:a. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, by himself, his servants, agents etc. From manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising directly or indirectly dealing in pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations under the trade mark ECEFLAM+ or any other trade mark deceptively and/or confusingly similar to the registered trademarks EXFLAM of the Plaintiff under Trade Mark Registration no.471455 and EMFLAM under registration no.4675968. b....
Tag this Judgment!Cpl. Md. Sa Ansari Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of hearing and order:9. h October 2014 + W.P.(C) 5073/2013 CPL. MD. SA ANSARI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ganesh Kumar, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI ORDER % KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.(Oral) 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the refusal of the respondents to grant him the requisite No Objection Certificate and discharge from service, to enable him to accept and comply with the formalities towards his appointment to the post of Assistant Manager with the IDBI Bank, respondent No.5 before us.2. The petitioner joined the Indian Air Force under the joining instructions of the respondent No.2 on 29th March, 2005 as an Airman and since then he is working with the respondent. The petitioner asserted that as per the joining instructions as stipulated in para 8, the petitioner could apply fo...
Tag this Judgment!Devender Singh Vs. Gian Prakash Saini
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV.No.203/2012 & C.M.No.18027/2013 (u/S151CPC) % 09th October, 2014 DEVENDER SINGH Through: ......Petitioner Mr.S.K.Duggal, Advocate. VERSUS GIAN PRAKASH SAINI ...... Respondent Through: Mr.S.K.Chawla, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is filed by the petitioner/tenant impugning the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 08.2.2012 by which the Rent Controller has dismissed the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner/tenant and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to the tenanted/suit premises being one room on the first floor of property no.4161, Nai Sarak, Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the eviction petition.2. The case as set up by the re...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Saptagiri Restaurant Vs. Airports Authority of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2014. + LPA No.681/2014, CMs No.16706/2014 (for stay) & 16707/2014 (for exemption) M/S SAPTAGIRI RESTAURANT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. J.K. Mittal, Mr. Rajveer Singh, Ms. Divya Sharma and Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Advs. Versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain and Mr. Pradeep Desodya, Advs. AND + LPA No.682/2014, CMs No.16708/2014 (for stay) & 16709/2014 (for exemption) M/S SAPTAGIRI RESTAURANT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. J.K. Mittal, Mr. Rajveer Singh, Ms. Divya Sharma and Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Advs. Versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain and Mr. Pradeep Desodya, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. These intra court appeals have been listed post-lunch, on urgent mentioning by the counsel for the appellant. The appeals impugn the separate but similar orders, both dated 1st Octob...
Tag this Judgment!Vikaas Ahluwalia Vs. Simran Ahluwalia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:09. 10.2014 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 83/2014 & C.M. No.12557/2014 VIKAAS AHLUWALIA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Y.P. Narula, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhey Narula, Mr. Ujas Kumar and Ms. Sugandha Anand, Advocates versus SIMRAN AHLUWALIA ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice. With consent, the matter was finally heard.2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Family Court dated 07.06.2014, by which the matrimonial proceedings being HMA No.134/2011 was listed for arguments on 05.08.2014. It is stated that the Presiding Judge was on leave on the said date and now the matter is scheduled for considering the proceedings/hearing on 10.10.2014 for evidence and arguments.3. Learned counsel submits that this Courts intervention is necessary inasmu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »