Delhi Court October 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 3 of about 220 results (0.017 seconds)Corporation Bank and anr. Vs. Presidingf Officer,cgit and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:31. t October, 2014 + W.P.(C) 4264/2014 CORPORATION BANK AND ANR. Represented by: ..... Petitioners Ms.Rama Arora, Advocate. Versus PRESIDINGF OFFICER,CGIT AND ANR. Represented by: None. ..... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) W.P.(C) 4264/2014 1. Office Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the Order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the respondent No.1, i.e., Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I, Karkardooma Court, Delhi.2. In para 19 of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal recorded that the claimant/respondent No.2 projected that his appeal dated 25.08.2010 was not considered by the Appellate Authority. Instead of appreciating contents of his appeal, his letter dated 05.01.2011 was described as his appeal and discarded on technicalities, claiming that it was preferred beyond 45 days of the final order. Thus, his right of appeal was not ...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Mohan Bhatia Vs. JaIn Sales Corporation and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:31. t October, 2014 % + I.A. No.12386/2011 in CS(OS) 1911/2011 BRIJ MOHAN BHATIA Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Rajiv Singh Pilania, Adv. with Mr.Lalit Kumar, Adv. versus JAIN SALES CORPORATION & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr.Sumant De, Adv. with Mr.A.K.Mehta, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trademarks, copyrights, delivery up, rendition of accounts of profits, damages etc. has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants in respect of trademark Flexilam Nomex. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC being I.A. 12386/2011.2. Summons were issued in the suit and notices in the application to the defendants on 8th August, 2011. After hearing, detailed exparte order was passed against the defendants restraining them from using the name Fle...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Vita Industries Vs. the Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:31. 10.2014 W.P.(C) 1504/2011 M/S VITA INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner versus THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr S.K. Sharma and Mr Prayas Aneja. For the Respondents : Ms Renuka Arora for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 This petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia seeking that a direction be issued to respondent no.2 (hereafter DSIIDC) to hand over the possession of the plot No.3/L/2, admeasuring 250 sq. mtrs. situated at Bawana Industrial Complex, Delhi on receiving the amount for the excess area in terms of paragraph no.10(1) of the order dated 16.02.2010 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.20462/2008 titled Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Skylark Engineering Works & Anr.. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was running ...
Tag this Judgment!Food Corporation of India Workers Union Vs. Ministry of Labour and Emp ...
Court: Delhi
$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:31. t October, 2014 + W.P.(C) No.7428/2014 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA WORKERS UNION ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr. Vikas Kumar and Mr. Manisal Paliwal, Advocates. Versus MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT REPRESENTED BY: ITS SECRETARY & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Anil Soni, CGSC and Mr. Naginder Benipal, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr.Om Prakash, Advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) CM No.17623/2014 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No.7428/2014 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner Union has assailed the letter dated 16.10.2014, whereby the Secretary ( CACLB), Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, passed the order as under:-2. You may make yourself present on the aforesaid date and time or send a representative with author...
Tag this Judgment!Col. Kalyan Singh (Retired) Vs. M/S Wimpy International Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :24. h July, 2014 Judgment pronounced on :31. t October, 2014 % + I.A. No.14348/2008 in CS(OS) 1432/2004 COL. KALYAN SINGH (RETIRED) ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Chayan Sarkar, Adv. with Mr.Bipul Kedia and Mr.Ankur Kumar, Advs. versus M/S WIMPY INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS. ..... Defendants Through Mr.Manav Gupta, Adv. with Ms.Prabhsahay Kaur and Ms.Esha Dutta, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By this order I propose to decide I.A. No.14348/2008 filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 read with Section 151 CPC for seeking return/rejection of the plaint.2. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants. He sought declaration of agreement dated 1st December, 1988 executed between the plaintiff and Capt. H.S. Bajaj and M/s Goodwill Foods (P) Ltd. and of other documents as null and void. The plaintiff sought a decree of permanent injunction against defen...
Tag this Judgment!Har Kishan Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:31. t October, 2014 + W.P.(C) 7423/2014 HAR KISHAN ..... Petitioner Represented by: None. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Jyoti Tyagi for Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for Respondent No.1/UOI. Ms.Mrinalini S. Gupta and Ms.Ruri Chopra, Advocates for Respondent No.2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) W.P.(C) 7423/2014 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions against the respondent No.1 to make payment of enhanced award of Rs.19,34,440/- per acre to the petitioner for the land of the petitioner acquired alongwith other villagers of Mundka whose lands were acquired along with the petitioner and who were awarded the aforesaid compensation by the order of this Court.2. Further seeks directions to pay difference of Rs.3,42,224-29/- per acre for the land of the petitioner acquired by the respondents as awarded to the other land owners of Village ...
Tag this Judgment!Bachan Lal Saini Thr Legal Representative Vs. Harbans Singh
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:31. t October, 2014 + RSA3112014 and CM Nos.17732-33/2014 BACHAN LAL SAINI THR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Brij Bhushan Solanki, Mr. V.P. Singh and Mr. Anuj R. Yadav, Advs. versus HARBANS SINGH ..... Respondent Through : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (Oral) CM No.17733/2014 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of. RSA3112014 and CM No.17732/2014 (stay) The concurrent findings returned by both the courts below are that the respondent plaintiff who is the landlord of premises bearing No.RZ1, Shankar Park, Baba Balaknath Mandir, West Sagarpur, New Delhi is entitled to recovery of possession of the suit premises along with arrears of rent, etc. At the hearing of this appeal, it was urged by learned counsel for the appellant defendant/tenant that during the pendency of the suit, the suit premises devolved upon a trust in the year, 2004 and the decree has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Jagbir Singh and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:31. t October, 2014 + W.P.(C) 1682/2014 JAGBIR SINGH & ORS. Represented by: ..... Petitioners Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik and Mr. Manoj Joshi, Advocates. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms. Mrinalini S. Gupta, Ms.Ruhi Chopra and Mr. Mrinmoyi Chaterjee, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) W.P.(C) 1682/2014 1. As stated in the present petition that respondent No.1/Government of NCT of Delhi, has issued Notification dated 04.06.2014 under Section 4 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (in short LA Act). The Land Acquisition Collector passed award No.4 of 2006-07 qua the land belonging to the petitioner falling in Khasra No.27/2/20 (3-12) without issuance of any notice to the petitioners.2. Further stated that the land in question enjoins the statutory protection under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Rahul Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. National Insurance Company Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P.No.190/2010 31st October, 2014 % M/S. RAHUL CARGO PVT. LTD. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Manoj Singh, Advocate. versus M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order of the trial court dated 7.12.2009 by which the trial court has rejected an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the petitioner/defendant.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 herein alongwith respondent no.2 herein, and who are the plaintiff nos.1 and 2 in the trial court, filed a suit for recovery of money/damages of Rs.3,45,975/against the petitioner/defendant/carrier on the ground that the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Randhir JaIn Vs. Sh. Neeraj Parekh and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.M.(M) No.965/2014 31th October, 2014 % SH. RANDHIR JAIN ..... Petitioner Through: None Versus SH. NEERAJ PAREKH & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner who is an Advocate impugns the order of the trial court dated 05.8.2014, and which order has simply allowed further time to the respondents/defendants to file replies to the applications under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC.2. I fail to understand as to how the extraordinary and discretionary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are being invoked in a routine manner, and that too by an Advocate as a litigant, in seeking orders that further time should not be given for filing replies to applications.3. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are extraordinary and discretionary powers,...
Tag this Judgment!