Delhi Court April 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Sakshi Devi Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.123/2014 25th April, 2014 % SMT. SAKSHI DEVI Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocate. Versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Ferida Satarwala, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.7181/2014 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No.7182/2014 (condonation of delay) 2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 156 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. + FAO No.123/2014 3. This first appeal is filed under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 impugning the judgment of the court below dated 29.7.2013, by which the appellant/petitioner, who is the natural mother of the minor Manya Sharma, has been denied permission to sell 1.19% (1/84 th ) share of the minor in the property bearing no.C-494, Gali no.11, Majlis Park, Delh...
Maqsood Ahmed Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :2. d APRIL, 2014 DECIDED ON :25. h APRIL, 2014 + CRL.A. 515/2011 & CRL.M.B.No.562/2014 MAQSOOD AHMED Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Vijay Kinger, Advocate. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The present appeal is directed to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 17.03.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.71/2009 arising out of FIR No.671/2006 PS Seelampur by which he was convicted under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC. By an order dated 01.04.2011, he was sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine ` 1,000/- under Section 392 IPC; RI for seven years with fine ` 1,500/- under Section 397 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet was that on the night intervening 05/06.11.2006 at around 12.30 ...
Wockhardt Ltd. Vs. Remed Healthcare Pvt Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on : April 25, 2014 + IA No.5745/2013 (u/O39R1& 2 CPC) in CS(OS) 660/2013 WOCKHARDT LTD. Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Ajay Sahni, Ms. Kanika Bajaj and Ms. Shivangi, Advocates versus REMED HEALTHCARE PVT LTD. & ANR. ....Defendants Through Mr. Dushyant K. Mahant and Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocates for D-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.1. This is an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff for injunction to restrain the defendants from selling, offering for sale, etc. goods under the trade mark Mericobal or any other deceptively similar trade mark to the plaintiffs registered trade mark also being Mericobal. The accompanying suit is filed by the plaintiff for injunction, rendition of accounts and for other connected reliefs.2. As per the plaint, the plaintiff is one of the leading manufacturers of bio-pharmaceuticals, nutrition products, etc. in the country and the plaintiff through its pre...
Glaxo Group Ltd. and anr. Vs. United Biotech P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on : APRIL25 2014 + IA No.13265/2011 (u/O39R1& 2 CPC) & 14230/2011 (u/O39R4CPC) in CS(OS) 2037/2011 GLAXO GROUP LTD. & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr. Manav Kumar, Advocate versus UNITED BIOTECH P. LTD. Through ..... Defendant Mr.Gaurav Pachnanda, Senior Advocate with Mr.Mohit Goel, Mr. Siddhant Goel, Mr.Rahul Sharma and Ms.Sangeeta Goel, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, etc. the medicinal products or other related goods under the trade mark HEPROTEC or any mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark HEPITEC and for other connected reliefs.2. IA No.13265/2011 is an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the plaintiff seeking interim injunction to restrain the defendant etc. from manufacturing, selling, offeri...
industria De Diseno Textil S a Vs. Oriental Cuisines Pvt Ltd and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :25. 04.2014 + I.A. No.12459/2013 in CS (OS) 1472/2013 INDUSTRIA DE DISENO TEXTIL S A ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akhil Sibal, Mr. Sushant Singh, Mr. Nikhil Chawla, Ms. Geetika Kapur, Mr. P.C. Arya, Mr. Rupesh Pandey and Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocates versus ORIENTAL CUISINES PVT LTD & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr.N.K. Kaul, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.S. Bharath and Ms. Prachi Agarwal, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.I.A. No.12459/2013 (u/O XXXIX R4CPC) 1. The above application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC has been filed by the defendant for vacation of the ex parte ad interim injunction dated 29.07.2013.2. On 29.07.2013 this court in IA No.11760/2013 had passed an injunction order restraining the defendants, their employees, agents, etc. from offering any type of services, manufacturing, marketing, selling and offering for sale, products and/or restaurant or hospita...
Master SamIn Chaudhary Vs. Chairman, Air Force School and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3773/2013 & CM APPL. 7064/2013 MASTER SAMIN CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner Through Mr. R.M. Tufail with Mr. Farooq Chaudhary, Mr. Shoeb Shakeel and Mr. Vishal Raj Sehijpal, Advocates versus CHAIRMAN, AIR FORCE SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Ms. Rekha Palli with Ms. Punam Singh, Advocates for R-1 and 2. Reserved on Date of Decision % :13. h March, 2014 :25. h April, 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J:1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent- Air Force Bal Bharati School (hereinafter referred to as "respondent-School") to disclose its policy, criteria and priority for granting admission to thirty-five candidates in Class-1 in academic year 2013-2014. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to admit him in Class-1 of respondent-School.2. The facts of the present case are that respondent-School has been established primarily to provide educational facilities to the...
Central Bank of India Vs. Smt. Sudershan Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on April 25, 2014 + W.P.(C) 10641/2006 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Represented: ..... Petitioner Mr.Ashish Wad, Advocate with Ms.Nidhi Renoo, Advocate versus SMT. SUDERSHAN KAPOOR Represented: ..... Respondent Mr.S.K. Das, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated May 09, 2006 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi in Appeal No.ND.36(4)/2006-P.A. whereby the Authority has upheld the decision of the Controlling Authority, who had directed payment of gratuity, amounting to Rs.3.50 lakhs along with interest @ 10% to the respondent.2. The brief facts are that, in the month of October 1999 when the respondent was working as a Branch Manager in the branch of petitioner-bank at Patel Nagar and also Manager, NBO, a charge sheet was issued to her for giving overdraft facility against fake/forged Kisan Vikas Patras, causing loss of Rs...
Shashi Garg Vs. M/S Shitiz Metals Ltd and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:25. April, 2014. + CS(OS) 585/2012 SHASHI GARG Through: ..... Plaintiff Ms. Rachna Agrawal, Adv. Versus M/S SHITIZ METALS LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Sharad Malhotra, Adv. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW I.A. No.4426/2012 (u/O39R-1&2 CPC) 1. The ex-parte ad-interim order dated 7th March, 2012 is made absolute till the decision of the suit.2. The application is disposed of. CS(OS) 585/2012 3. The suit is ripe for framing of issues.4. The counsel for the plaintiff states that in this suit, (i) for recovery of possession of second floor with terrace of property No.D-819, New Friends Colony, New Delhi; and, (ii) for recovery of arrears of and future mesne profits and for ancillary injunction, insofar as the relief of possession is concerned, the written statement of the two defendants does not raise any material plea and the suit insofar as for the relief of recovery of possession, is entitled to be decree...
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd Vs. Dy Director of Income Tax, Circ ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. h March, 2014 Date of Decision:25. h April, 2014 % + W.P.(C) 3891/2013 SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD Through ..... Petitioner Mr. S.E.Dastur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Satyen Sethi,Mr. Madhur Aggarwal,Mr.A. Trana Panda, Advs. versus DY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ..... Respondent Through + Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Adv. for R-2 W.P.(C) 999/2014 SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD Through Mr. S.E.Dastur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Satyen Sethi,Mr. Madhur Aggarwal,Mr.A. Trana Panda, Advs. versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. Through ..... Petitioner ..... Respondent Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel for R-1 Mr. Aditya Malhotra,Adv. for R-4 CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.These are two writ petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the jurisdiction of the first respondent to (i) reopen t...
Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumar Prasad and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :25.04.2014 + I.A. No.23086/2012 in CS(OS) No.3534/2012 ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. Through Mr.Manav Kumar, Advocate versus RAJ KUMAR PRASAD & ORS. Through ....Plaintiff ....Defendants Mr.Mohan Vidhani, Mr.Rahul Vidhani and Mr.Arun K.Jain, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.I.A. No.23086/2012 1. The present application is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking injunction to restrain the defendants etc. from manufacturing or offering for sale medicinal or pharmaceutical preparations under the trademark AMAFORTEN or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trademark ANAFORTAN. Other connected reliefs are also sought for. The accompanying plaint is filed by the plaintiff stating that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, USA which was founded in the year 1888. The trademark ANAFORTAN is stated to be an invented mark having no dictionary meaning. It is...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »