Delhi Court September 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 16 of about 257 results (0.013 seconds)Vinod Vashisht Vs. Suresh Chanchal and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:12. 05.2014 Date of Decision:10. 09.2014 + CM (M) No.1277 of 2012 VINOD VASHISHT Through: ...... Petitioner Mr. M.K. Gautam, Adv. versus SURESH CHANCHAL & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Prasoon Kumar & Ms. Iram Majid, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks setting aside of two orders. The first one being the order of the ACJ-cum-ARC (South-West) dated 30.1.2012, which allowed the respondent/defendants application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) to amend the affidavit supporting his Written Statement (WS). The second one is an order dated 31.07.2012 in a review application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff, whereby the order dated 20.01.2012 was affirmed resulting in the dismissal of the petitioners review application.2. The petitioner/plaintiff had filed...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar and anr. Vs. Smt. Asha Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.833 /2014 10th September, 2014 % VINOD KUMAR AND ANR. Through: ......Petitioners Mr. N.M. Popli, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. ASHA DEVI AND ORS. Through: ...... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.14965/2014(exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No.14967/2014 (condonation of delay) 2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of two days in re-filing the petition is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. + C.M.(M) No.833/2014 and C.M. No.14966/2014 (stay) 3. The present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the trial court dated 15.7.2014 which has rejected the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for production of documents during the course of evidence. No doubt, the imp...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Prasad and anr. Vs. Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : September 05, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on : September 10, 2014 + FAO(OS) 281/2014 RAJ KUMAR PRASAD & ANR. ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr.Mohan Vidhani, Advocate with Mr.Rahul Vidhani and Mr.S.B.Prasad, Advocates versus ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD. ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Manav Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The question : Whether the registered proprietor of a trademark can sue another registered proprietor of a trademark alleging deceptive similarity keeps on arising in this Court. The consistent view taken by learned Single Judges is that such a suit would be maintainable and thus by way of an interim injunction the defendant can be restrained from marketing goods under the offending trademark. The question has arisen once again in the suit filed by Abbott Healthcare Pvt....
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Metal Fabricators Vs. Sh. Tej Pal Singh
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.835/2014 10th September, 2014 % M/S. METAL FABRICATORS Through: ......Petitioner Mr. D.K. Singh, Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Chauhan, Advocate. VERSUS SH. TEJ PAL SINGH Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Paramjeet Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.14998/2014 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. + C.M.(M) No.835/2014 and C.M. No.14996/2014 (stay) 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the trial court dated 05.6.2014 which has struck off the defence of the petitioner/defendant/tenant for non-complying with the order of payment of interim rent/user charges dated 13.4.2010.3. A reading of the impugned order from paras 4 to 8 shows that petitioner was guilty of repeated defaults and repeated delays in not paying the admitted rent. Surely, the tenants who ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Prem Chand Vs. Smt. Madhu Rani and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC. REV. No.255/2013 10th September, 2014 % SHRI PREM CHAND Through: ......Petitioner Mr. K.K. Malhotra, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. MADHU RANI AND ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Ms. Karuna Chhatwal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is filed impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 24.1.2013 which has dismissed the leave to defend application and decreed the eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act for bonafide necessity with respect to the tenanted shop bearing no.94/2, Shankar Market, Railway Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 as shown in red colour in the site plan.2. Counsel for the petitioner argues the following aspects which according to him not only show that leave to defend should be g...
Tag this Judgment!United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manish Kumar Gupta
Court: Delhi
$~28 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. 1127/2013 % Judgment reserved on :07. 08.2015 Judgment pronounced on :10. 09.2015 UNITED INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. S.K. Ray, Mr. Amitava Poddar, Advocates versus MANISH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Adv. CORAM HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT I.A. Nos. 18444/2013 (delay in filing) and 18445/2013 (delay in refiling) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Along with the petition the petitioner has also filed I.A.Nos.18444/2013 and 18445/2013 for the condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the present petition.2. It is submitted that the award dated 10.04.2013 was received by the counsel of the petitioner on 16.04.2013 and it was received by the party on 23.04.2013. It is submitted that the present petition was filed on 17.08.2013. It is submitted that i...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Dass and ors Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4128/2014 DEEPAK DASS & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajnish Kumar Gaind with Mr. Hemant Kaushik, Advocates along with petitioners in person. versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for the State. WSI Asha Rani from P.S. Palam Village. The complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.333/2011, registered under Section 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Palam Vihar, Delhi, on 16.12.2011, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.2. Issue notice. Counsel for the State enters appearance and accepts notice. The complainant Parul Dass is also present in person. The I.O.WSI Asha Rani also identifies the petitioners as well as the complainant.3. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged by the com...
Tag this Judgment!Navneet Arora Vs. Surender Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on : August 28, 2014 Judgment Delivered on : September 10, 2014 % + FAO(OS) 196/2014 NAVNEET ARORA Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Chetan Lokur and Mr.Karan Mehta, Advocates for Mr.Viraj Datar, Advocate versus SURENDER KAUR AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Attin Shankar Rastogi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Late Sh.Harpal Singh Arora was the registered owner of property bearing municipal No.B-44, Vishal Enclave Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. He acquired ownership under a perpetual lease dated June 07, 1974 executed in his favour by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. When he purchased the property on perpetual lease-hold basis, it consisted of only the ground floor. He constructed two floors above and sold them during his life time. He lived in the ground floor with his family comprising his wife Ms.Surinder Kaur and two sons named Rama...
Tag this Judgment!Nandini Tewari and anr Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:10. h September, 2014. + W.P.(C) No.6053/2014 NANDINI TEWARI & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Abhishek Krishna, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Ms. Kritika and Ms. Pallavi Shali, Advs. Mr. Sidharth Chopra and Ms. Sneha Jain, Advs. for Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeks a direction to the respondents Union of India and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the private respondents not to release the movie Finding Fanny on 12th September, 2014 and a further direction to the private respondents, being the Director and Producer of the said film, to delete the word Fanny from everywhere it appears in the film including from the posters and banners ...
Tag this Judgment!C and S Electric Mv Pvt Limited Vs. ...........
Court: Delhi
$~28 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.PET. 379/2014 IN THE MATTER OF C & S ELECTRIC MV PVT LIMITED ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Arun Kathpalia and Mr. Dhrupad Das, Advocates for the Petitioners. Mr P.K Malik, Deputy Registrar of Companies for the Regional Director. Mr. Rajiv Behl, Advocate for the Official Liquidator. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA ORDER % 10.09.2014 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL) CA No.1944/2014 This is an application by the Official Liquidator seeking condonation of delay in filing the report. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the report is condoned. The report is directed to be taken on record. ============================================= CO.PET. 379/2014 1 CO.PET. 379/2014 1. This second motion petition has been filed under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) seeking sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation (Scheme) of C&S Electric MV Private Limited (hereinafter refe...
Tag this Judgment!