Delhi Court November 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 129 of about 1,333 results (0.022 seconds)Bestochem Formulations (i) Limited Vs. Alps Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :1. t OCTOBER, 2014 DECIDED ON :5. h NOVEMBER, 2014 + CS (OS) 1917/2009 BESTOCHEM FORMULATIONS (I) LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through : Mr.Surinder Singh, Advocate. VERSUS ALPS PHARMACEUTICALS (PVT.) LTD. & ORS. ..... Defendants Through : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the trademark and passing off their goods as that of defendants. Briefly the facts pleaded in the plaint are :2. The plaintiff company Bestochem Formulations (I) Ltd. is a company duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act. It is a well known organization in the field of manufacturing, sale and distribution of pharmaceuticals and medicines since 18.09.1985. It enjoys a very high reputation for its products because of excellent quality and efficiency. Its total turnover runs into crores of rupees. The plaintiff is propr...
Tag this Judgment!Satish JaIn and ors. Vs. Taro Devi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC. REV. No.595/2012 % SATISH JAIN & ORS. Through:5. h November, 2014 ......Petitioners Mr. Ravi Dahiya, proxy counsel for Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate. VERSUS TARO DEVI Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Atul Bandhu and Mr. Varun Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. At the outset, counsel Mr. Ravi Dahiya, Advocte who appears for the petitioners sought adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate is not available. A reference to the memo of parties filed in the present petition shows that there is not one but two Advocates namely Sh. Amit Jain and Sh. Ashok Jain for the petitioners. Non-availability of only one counsel is therefore not a good ground for adjournment especially because adjournment is very vehemently opposed on behalf of the respondent as petitioners enjoy the benefit of an interim order dated 12.12.2012 staying evict...
Tag this Judgment!Urmila and anr. Vs. Ram Avatar and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.52/2014 & CM Nos. 958-959/2014 & 3491/14 & 17484/14 5th November, 2014 % URMILA & ANR. Through: ......Petitioners Mr. A.K.Srivastava, Adv. VERSUS RAM AVATAR & 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 present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 3.12.2013 by which the Rent Control Tribunal has dismissed the two appeals filed under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act). The first appeal was filed against the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 31.10.2011 by which the objections filed by the present petitioners to the execution application filed by the respondents were dismissed. The second appeal which was dismissed was filed by the present petitioner no.1 against the ex parte eviction order dated 7.4.1999 by whi...
Tag this Judgment!Poonam Chopra and anr Vs. Satish Chopra and ors
Court: Delhi
$~54. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2438/2014 Date of decision :5th November, 2014 % POONAM CHOPRA & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through : Mr.Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Anunaya Mehta, Advs. versus SATISH CHOPRA & ORS Through : ..... Defendant Mr.Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sanjeet Singh, Advs. for defendants no.1 and 4. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Rakesh Mukhija, Advs. for defendants no.2, 4 to 10 along with defendant no.2. Mr.Aman Nandrajog, Adv. for defendant no.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) I.A.15251/2014 1. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for specific performance, declaration, possession, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.2. As per the plaint, plaintiff no.1 is the widow of the deceased brother of defendants no.1 and 2 and son of defendant no.3. Plaintiff no.2 is the daughter of plaintiff no.1. Plaintiffs have sought specific performance of a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Advocate Manish Kumar Khanna Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :28.10.2014 Pronounced on :05. 11.2014 % + W.P.(CRL) 1355/2014 ADVOCATE MANISH KUMAR KHANNA ..... Petitioner Through : Petitioner in person. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Lao, A.S.C. for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J.1. The Petitioner Shri Manish Kumar Khanna, Advocate has filed this Writ Petition in his individual capacity impugning the two different orders passed in two different cases i.e. order dated 14th February, 2014 passed in Sessions Case No.11/2013 tiled as State Vs. Gupreet Singh & Anr. in FIR No.23/2012 PS Special Cell and order dated 10th May, 2014 passed in Sessions Case No.10/2013 titled as State Vs. Arun Kumar & Ors. in FIR No.28/2012 PS Special Cell whereby his prayer to impose cost on the Prosecution, was declined.2. In brief the case of the Petitioner is that he has been practising on criminal side since the year 1998 and has been working to provide speedy...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwani Sharma and ors. Vs. Smt. Kanta Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.497/2014 & CM Nos.8762-63/2014 5th November , 2014 % ASHWANI SHARMA & ORS. Through: ......Petitioners Mr. Pramod Ahuja, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. KANTA SHARMA & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Akshay Makhija CGSC with Ms. Sanjugupta Moktan and Ms. Mahima Bahl, Advs. for R-4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Counsel for the petitioners when asked to argue the present petition, kept on repeatedly asking for an adjournment and refused to argue the matter on the ground that he does not have the impugned order and certain documents. In my opinion, the request for adjournment is totally unjustified because this case had come up for the first time on 20.5.2014 and on which date it was renotified for today. When counsel for the petitioners was pointed out this fact, he makes a very unfortunate observation that he was ready on 20.5.2014, but it is the predecessor c...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Balakrishnan Vs. State of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:5. h November, 2014 % + W.P.(Crl.) No.2080/2014 M.K. BALAKRISHNAN Through: .. Petitioner Petitioner in person. Versus STATE OF DELHI & ORS. .. Respondents Through: None. CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and relying on a newspaper report of the Supreme Court vide order dated 5th September, 2014 having directed the Judicial Officers to identify prisoners who have completed half of the maximum period of imprisonment provided for offences they are charged with and to pass appropriate orders in jail itself of release of the undertrial prisoners and further relying on Section 433(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 161 of the Constitution of India giving power to the appropriate Government to commute life sentence, to 14 years, seeks a direction to...
Tag this Judgment!Dinkar Kumar and ors Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:5. h November, 2014 % + W.P.(C) No.2844/2014 DINKAR KUMAR AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Praveen Agarwal & Mr. R.R. Singh, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Sanjeev Narula & Ms. Pallavi Shali, Advs. for UOI. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Adv. for DHC. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by three Advocates as a Public Interest Litigation, impugns:(1) Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; (2) Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961; (3) Section 18 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997; (4) Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; (5) Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969; (6) Section 53T of the Competition Act, 2002; (7) Section 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal A...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
70 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:03. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 5557/2014 & CM137822014 ASSOCIATED SHOES PVT. LTD. ..Petitioner versus ..Respondents UNION OF INDIA & ORS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Sumit Bansal, Mr Ateev Mathur and Ms Richa Oberoi. For the Respondents : Mr Manish Mohan for UOI. Mr Yeeshu Jain and Mr Siddharth Panda for LAC/L&B. Mr Pawan Mathur with Mr Himanshu Gupta for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. A declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act) in respect of which Award N...
Tag this Judgment!Sonu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: October 15, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: November 03, 2014 % + CRL.A.781/2011 AFZAL SHA @ SURAJ ALI ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate with Ms.Neha Singh, Ms.Pankhuri Mehndiratta, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Inspector Anil Kumar Pandey, PS Kashmere Gate CRL.A. 784/2011 AJAY Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate with Ms.Neha Singh, Ms.Pankhuri Mehndiratta, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Inspector Anil Kumar Pandey, PS Kashmere Gate CRL.A. 1270/2013 SONU Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: CRL.A.No.781/2011 & conn.matters ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Inspector Anil Kumar Pandey, PS Page 1 of 11 Kashmere Gate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J...
Tag this Judgment!