Delhi Court November 2014 Judgments
VirgIn Enterprises Ltd. and anr. Vs. VirgIn Paradise Airlines Training ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :3. d NOVEMBER, 2014 DECIDED ON :25. h NOVEMBER, 2014 + CS (OS) 734/2013 VIRGIN ENTERPRISES LTD. & ANR. Through : ..... Plaintiffs Mr.Amitabha Sen, Advocate with Ms.Malyashree Sridharan & Mr.Nihit Nagpal, Advocates. VERSUS VIRGIN PARADISE AIRLINES TRAINING PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant Through : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing their trademark and passing off their services as that of his. Briefly stated, the facts set up in the plaint are as under :2. The plaintiff No.1 Virgin Enterprises Limited is a member of the Virgin Group of Companies. It was originally established by Sir Richard Branson in 1970. It is a company incorporated in England and Wales and is a member of the Group of Companies collectively known as the Virgin Group of Companies. Plaintiff No.2 Virgin Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. having i...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. h November 2014 Decision on:25. h November 2014 CRL.A. No.147 of 2009 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sharat Kapoor, Ms. Shilpa Dewan and Mr. Sunny Verma, Advocates. versus STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Isha Khanna, APP for State. Mr. D.S. Kohli with Mr. Aashneet Singh Anand, Advocates for Respondent No.2. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2511.2014 1. This appeal by the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) is against the impugned judgment dated 6th August 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) in Complaint Case No.199 of 2003 acquitting the Respondent No.2 of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The complaint 2. In its complaint before the learned MM, SAIL stated that M/s. Capital Industries, Respondent No.3 partnership firm, of which Mr. Dinesh Vij, (Respondent No.2 herein) and Mr. Pra...
Tag this Judgment!Prachi Narayan Vs. Lalit Narayan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: November 25, 2014 + CM(M) No.1386/2009 & C.M.No.17191/2009 PRACHI NARAYAN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Arvind K.Nigam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, Advocate versus LALIT NARAYAN Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Vedanta Varma & Ms. Meha Rashmi, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Respondent-husband has sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and in the petition for divorce, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was filed by the wife, who is petitioner herein and the said application has been dismissed vide impugned order of 21 st October, 2009. Rejection of petition filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty is sought by petitioner-wife on the ground that marriage between the parties stood already dissolved vide decree of 21st November, 2008 by the court of competent jurisdiction in United States of America (USA). The factual background of this case already stands noted in the impu...
Tag this Judgment!Cwick (import Consolidations) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indian Agriculture Researc ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:25. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 2094/2014 & CM No.4362/2014 CWICK (IMPORT CONSOLIDATIONS) PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner versus INDIAN AGRICULTURE RESEARCH INSTITUTE ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Jagjit Singh. For the Respondent : Mr Piyush Sharma. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the order dated 03.03.2014 passed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) inter alia directing recovery of a sum of `5,74,249/from the petitioner and blacklisting the petitioner from any future dealings with the respondent.2. The limited controversy to be addressed is whether, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the order of blacklisting the petitioner is unreasonable.3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary for the purpose of considering the dispute are as under:4. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Kawaljeet Singh Vs. Satpal Singh Kohli and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 1047/2014 25th November, 2014 % KAWALJEET SINGH Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Amarjit Singh Sahni, Advocate. VERSUS SATPAL SINGH KOHLI & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.19406/2014 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. + C.M.(M) No.1047/2014 and C.M. No.19405/2014 (stay) 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner/plaintiff impugns the order of the trial court dated 9.10.2014 by which costs of Rs.50,000/- were imposed upon the petitioner and in favour of the defendants in view of the fact that defendants had suffered litigation for around five years before the petitioner/plaintiff chose to withdraw the Receipt regarding deposition of cost of Rs. 5000/- in terms of order dated 17.09.2014 with Dwarka Court Bar Association has been placed on rec...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
$~23(IV) * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:25. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 5233/2014 and CM No.10408/2014 ... Petitioner OM PRAKASH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr N.S Vasisht, Mr Vishal Singh, Ms Jyoti Kataria and Mr M.P. Bhargava For the Respondents : Ms Suparna Srivastava with Ms Nishtha Sikroria for R-1 & 2 Mr Siddharth Panda for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 Mr Ajay Verma and Mr Amit Mehra for DDA CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking 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. The petitioner, consequently seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquis...
Tag this Judgment!Aabhas Arora Vs. the State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5294/2014 AABHAS ARORA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Shiv Pande and Mr. Vadudhara Nagrath, Advocates with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with HC Jagdish Singh PS Adarsh Nagar. Complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl. M.A. 18065/2014 (for exemption) Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off. CRL.M.C. 5294/2014 and Crl. M.A. 18064/2014 (for stay) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.374/2014 registered under Sections 287/337 IPC at Police Station Adarsh Nagar on 4th June, 2014 on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.2. Issue notice. Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the State/res...
Tag this Judgment!Asim Chowdhury Vs. Swagatam Tours and Travels (P) Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on 25th November, 2014 + W.P.(C) 805/2013 ASIM CHOWDHURY ..... Petitioner Represented by : Mr.S.Mukherjee, Adv. Versus SWAGATAM TOURS AND TRAVELS (P) LTD ..... Respondent Represented by : Mr. Vijay Jaiswal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J (ORAL) 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 01.04.2006, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.103/1995.2. Vide order dated 21.07.1995 the reference was sent on the following terms:Whether the services of Sh. Asim Chowdhary have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?.3. The petitioner/workman filed statement of claims and stated that he was working with the respondent/management as Driver w.e.f. 16.11.1992 and his last drawn wages was Rs.1000/- per month. The Man...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Karan Yadav Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: November 25, 2014 + CRL.A. 1145/2011 JAI KARAN YADAV Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Narinder Sharma, Advocate with Mr.J.P.Singh, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Insp.Satish Kumar, PS Bhalsava Dairy CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Kaushalya Yadav (deceased) was the wife of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute said fact. Kaushalya Yadav was injured in her matrimonial house on July 14, 2010 at 10:30 PM and appellant was present in the house is a fact not disputed by the appellant. The fact that the appellant was present in his house when his wife was injured is proved by the MLC Ex.PW-5/A of Kaushalya Yadav which records that at 12:05 i.e. soon after midnight on July 15, 2010 the appellant took his wife in an injured condition to Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital where she was de...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Sunita Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: November 25, 2014 + MAT.APP. 30/2012 MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Mohit Gupta and Mr.Vishal Saxena, Advocates versus SUNITA SHARMA Through: ..... Respondent Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Vide impugned judgment of 24th December, 2011 appellants petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty stands dismissed by trial court while holding as under:The above discussion shows that the pleadings of the petitioner lack in concrete, specific and material facts and they mostly consist of opinion and inferences. They cannot be termed as facts. The inherent defect of pleadings cannot be cured by any amount of evidence. The pleadings circumscribe the scope of evidence. The facts are not reproduced as they are already noticed in the impugned judgment. Respondent was served but none had appeared on behalf of respondent. It is so noted in the last order. It was submitted by learned counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »