Delhi Court July 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 14 of about 371 results (0.020 seconds)Harish Kumar Vs. Upsc and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 & 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:10. 07.2014 Pronounced on :23. 07.2014 + + + + + + + W.P.(C) 3895/2014, C.M. NO.7850/2014 SH. SUNIL KUMAR GAUR versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3903/2014, C.M. NO.7865/2014 SANJAY CHAWLA versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3904/2014, C.M. NO.7867/2014 OM LATA SINGH versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3905/2014, C.M. NO.7869/2014 SH. RAJESH SHARMA AND ANR. versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3924/2014, C.M. NO.7905/2014 SH. KULDEEP SINGH versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3862/2014, C.M. NO.7800/2014 MAMTA YADAV AND ORS. versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3876/2014, C.M. NO.7822/2014 HARISH KUMAR versus W.P.(C) 3895/2014 and connected matters ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents ..... Petitioners ..... Respondents ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents ..... Petitioners ..... Respondents ..... Petitioner Page 1 UPSC AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Sh. Yashpal Rangi, Advocate, f...
Tag this Judgment!General Mills Marketing Inc and anr. Vs. South India Beverages Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: July 23, 2014 + I.A. No.961/2013 in CS (OS) 110/2013 GENERAL MILLS MARKETING INC & ANR. Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Anuradha Salhotra, Mr. Sumit Wadhwa & Mr. Tushar A. John, Advocates. versus SOUTH INDIA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. .... Defendant Through Through Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Mr. Joseph Pookkatt, Mr.Saurabh S. Sinha and Ms.Jaya Mandelia, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.I.A. No.961/2013 1. The present application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking ad interim injunction to restrain the defendant from using the trademark DDAAZS or any other deceptively similar trademark to that of the plaintiffs trademark HAAGEN-DAZS and DAZS in relation to the goods manufactured and/or marketed by them or in relation to their business or in any other manner. The accompanying plaint is filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction and other connected reliefs in relation to its re...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Chawla Vs. Upsc and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 & 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:10. 07.2014 Pronounced on :23. 07.2014 + + + + + + + W.P.(C) 3895/2014, C.M. NO.7850/2014 SH. SUNIL KUMAR GAUR versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3903/2014, C.M. NO.7865/2014 SANJAY CHAWLA versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3904/2014, C.M. NO.7867/2014 OM LATA SINGH versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3905/2014, C.M. NO.7869/2014 SH. RAJESH SHARMA AND ANR. versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3924/2014, C.M. NO.7905/2014 SH. KULDEEP SINGH versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3862/2014, C.M. NO.7800/2014 MAMTA YADAV AND ORS. versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3876/2014, C.M. NO.7822/2014 HARISH KUMAR versus W.P.(C) 3895/2014 and connected matters ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents ..... Petitioners ..... Respondents ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents ..... Petitioners ..... Respondents ..... Petitioner Page 1 UPSC AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Sh. Yashpal Rangi, Advocate, f...
Tag this Judgment!Mamta Yadav and ors. Vs. Upsc and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 & 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:10. 07.2014 Pronounced on :23. 07.2014 + + + + + + + W.P.(C) 3895/2014, C.M. NO.7850/2014 SH. SUNIL KUMAR GAUR versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3903/2014, C.M. NO.7865/2014 SANJAY CHAWLA versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3904/2014, C.M. NO.7867/2014 OM LATA SINGH versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3905/2014, C.M. NO.7869/2014 SH. RAJESH SHARMA AND ANR. versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3924/2014, C.M. NO.7905/2014 SH. KULDEEP SINGH versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3862/2014, C.M. NO.7800/2014 MAMTA YADAV AND ORS. versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3876/2014, C.M. NO.7822/2014 HARISH KUMAR versus W.P.(C) 3895/2014 and connected matters ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents ..... Petitioners ..... Respondents ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents ..... Petitioners ..... Respondents ..... Petitioner Page 1 UPSC AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Sh. Yashpal Rangi, Advocate, f...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Continental Auto Services Vs. the Secretary-labour and anr
Court: Delhi
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:23. d July, 2014 % + W.P.(C) 584/2013 M/S CONTINENTAL AUTO SERVICES ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Siddharth Dias, Adv. versus THE SECRETARY-LABOUR AND ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Dhanesh Relan and Ayush Bhandari, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 31.05.2012, passed by Ld. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-X, Karkardooma, Delhi in F.24(4539)/2001-Lab./4495-99 dated 26.03.2002 in ID No.101/09, Unique Case ID No.02402C0045642002.2. Respondent no.1 is a proforma party. Citation qua respondent No.2 has been filed, which is on record. As per the citation, respondent No.2 has been served for the date of hearing, i.e., 13.12.2013. However, there is no appearance on behalf of the said respondent despite service. Even today, none appeared on his behalf. Therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed wi...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sunita Chauhan @ Gayatri Devi Vs. Shri Virender Singh Gusain
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.593/2013 and C.M. No.8840/2013 % 23rd July, 2014 SMT. SUNITA CHAUHAN @ GAYATRI DEVI Through: None. ......Petitioner VERSUS SHRI VIRENDER SINGH GUSAIN ...... Respondent Through: Respondent in person. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (South), Saket, New Delhi dated 18.4.2013 by which the Additional Rent Control Tribunal in first appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) set aside the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 26.5.2012 dismissing the eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act. As per the provision of Section 14(1)(h), if a tenant acquires vacant physical possession of alternative accommodation, he loses protection of the Act a...
Tag this Judgment!Employee State Insurance Corporation Vs. M/S Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
Court: Delhi
$~8 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO3722013 Decided on 23rd July, 2014 EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION..... Appellant Through : Mr. K.P. Mavi and Mr. B.P. Mishra, Advs. Versus M/S HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. ..... Respondent Through : Mr. R.K. Mittal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1. Respondent filed a petition under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (the Act, for short) before the ESIC Court thereby assailed the order dated 1st December, 2008 passed by the appellant under Section 45-A of the Act. Respondent alleged that it had acquired M/s. Modern Food Industries (India) Limited in two spells i.e. in 2000 and 2003, under the disinvestment policy of Government of India and thereafter the said company became the subsidiary of respondent. As a result of amalgamation with effect from 30th March, 2007 M/s. Modern Food Industries (India) Limited lost its legal existence and stood merged with the respondent. The demand ra...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Salek Ram and anr. Vs. Sh. Dharma (Since Deceased) Through Lrs and ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.303/2013 and C.M. No.4412/2013 23rd July, 2014 % SH. SALEK RAM AND ANR. Through: ......Petitioners Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate. VERSUS SH. DHARMA (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ANR. ...... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the trial court dated 11.2.2013 whereby the application filed by the legal heirs of the deceased defendant no.2 for their being impleaded as parties was allowed. By the same application, condonation of delay in filing the application was also condoned. I may state that what are the exact number of days of delay is not found on the record, but, it would be around at best of two/three months inasmuch as the defendant no.2 expired on 6.6.2012 and the application was moved in the year 2012 itself.2. The subject suit was a suit for injuncti...
Tag this Judgment!Om Lata Singh Vs. Upsc and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 & 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:10. 07.2014 Pronounced on :23. 07.2014 + + + + + + + W.P.(C) 3895/2014, C.M. NO.7850/2014 SH. SUNIL KUMAR GAUR versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3903/2014, C.M. NO.7865/2014 SANJAY CHAWLA versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3904/2014, C.M. NO.7867/2014 OM LATA SINGH versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3905/2014, C.M. NO.7869/2014 SH. RAJESH SHARMA AND ANR. versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3924/2014, C.M. NO.7905/2014 SH. KULDEEP SINGH versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3862/2014, C.M. NO.7800/2014 MAMTA YADAV AND ORS. versus UPSC AND ORS. W.P.(C) 3876/2014, C.M. NO.7822/2014 HARISH KUMAR versus W.P.(C) 3895/2014 and connected matters ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents ..... Petitioners ..... Respondents ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents ..... Petitioners ..... Respondents ..... Petitioner Page 1 UPSC AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Sh. Yashpal Rangi, Advocate, f...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Prasad Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:14. 07.2014 Pronounced on:23. 07.2014 + W.P.(C) 2216/2014 MAHABIR PRASAD ..... Petitioner Through : Sh. G.S. Charya, Advocate. versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate.. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questions an order dated 23.03.2012 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal) in O.A. No.3579/2011 and the order dated 12.05.2011 of the Delhi Transport Corporation (hereafter DTC) to the extent that it denies the petitioner notional fixation of pay and increments and counts the period out of employment as not being in service, for the purposes of pension and terminal benefits. The question requiring decision is whether an employee reinstated to his position is entitled to benefits of notional pay fixation, increments etc. and...
Tag this Judgment!