Delhi Court September 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 19 of about 257 results (0.025 seconds)Ram Pal Chauhan Vs. M/S County Apparels and Others
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:9. h September, 2014 + CS (OS) No.1584/ 2007 RAM PAL CHAUHAN Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Sushant Singh, Advocate, Mr. P.C. Arya, Advocate and Mr. Tejinder Singh, Advocate. versus M/S COUNTY APPARELS AND OTHERS Through: ..... Defendants Nemo CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. This suit for permanent injunction, passing off, damages and delivery up has been filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants with the averments that the Plaintiff is a proprietor of firm M/s. Classic Apparels and is carrying on business of readymade garments, particularly jeans under the trademark DEVIN.2. The said trademark was adopted by the Plaintiff in the year 2003 and the goods were introduced in the market in the year 2004. The turnover in respect of the goods sold by the Plaintiff under the trade name DEVIN rose from Rs. 1,47,14,866/- in the year 2004-2005 to Rs. 11,48,57,719/- in the year 2006-2007.3. It is averred th...
Tag this Judgment!Shanawaz Khan Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:09. 09.2014 W.P. (C) 5764/2013 & CM No.10017/2014 SHANAWAZ KHAN Petitioner versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & OTHERS Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Petitioner : Mr Sugriva Dubey For the Respondent/MCD : Ms Madhu Tewatia, Mr Gautam Kumar and Ms Sidhi Arora For the Respondent/UoI & GNCTD : Ms Pinky Anand, ASG with Mr Balendu Shekhar and Mr S.N. Parashar. For the Respondent No.3 : Ms Zubeda Begum with Ms Sana Ansari. For the Respondent No.4 : Mr R.K. Kapoor and Ms S. Rama For the Respondent No.5 : Mr Anuj Narula Dr Satbir Bedi, Principal Secretary. Mr Gyanesh Bharti, Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Transport. Mr Rejender Soni, ACP. Mr Satish Mathur,Special Commissioner, Transport. Mr Manish Garg, Addl. Commissioner Transport. Mr S. Roy Biswas, Deputy Commissioner, Transport. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.1. In this writ pe...
Tag this Judgment!Lt Foods Ltd. Vs. Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : August 11, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on : September 09, 2014 + FAO (OS) 591/2013 LT FOODS LTD. Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Neel Mason, Advocate with Mr.Ankit Relan, Advocate versus SACHDEVA & SONS RICE MILLS LTD. & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Rikky Gupta, Mr.Manish Vashisth and Mr.Sameer Vashisth, Advocates for R-1 and R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The backdrop facts leading to filing of the above captioned appeal are that on April 08, 2009 the appellant filed a suit being CS (OS) No.653/2009 on the original side of this Court inter-alia praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.1 or any other person acting under its authority from using the trade mark HERITAGE as part of its trade name INDIAN HERITAGE SELECT/INDIAN HERITAGE/HERITAGE SELECT in relating ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Nct of Delhi Vs. Parveen Kumar and ors
Court: Delhi
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 760/2013 STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Represented by: ..... Petitioner Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with Inspector Anil Kumar, PS Bawana. versus PARVEEN KUMAR & ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Bhupinder Methani, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.Saurabh Kansal and Md.Azhar, Advocates for respondent No.2. Mr.B.S.Mathur and Mr.Rajat Mathur, Advocates for respondent No.3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER0809.2014 % 1. State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated November 09, 2012 whereby the respondents Praveen Kumar@ Sonu, Shiv Kumar@ Tony and Kulwant Singh have been acquitted of the charge for offence punishable under Section 302/120B IPC. Praveen Kumar has been convicted for offence under Section 25 Arms Act challenging which he has filed a separate appeal being Crl.Appeal No.354/2013.2. The case of the prosecutions rests on the circumstantial evidence. An informat...
Tag this Judgment!Bharti Airtel Ltd Vs. Airtelasia and ors
Court: Delhi
$~ 26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2476/2013 Date of decision :08. h September, 2014 % BHARTI AIRTEL LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Sudeep Chatterjee and Ms.Deepthi Alexander, Advocates versus AIRTELASIA & ORS Through ..... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining violation and infringement of rights in the Trade Mark/Trade Name/Logo/Label AIRTEL, Trade dress, Domain Name, Passing Off and Dilution, Damages/Rendition of Accounts and Delivery up.2. Summons in the suit and notice in the application were issued on 11.12.2013 and 21.05.2014. Affidavit of service has been filed to show that the Defendants have been served. Despite service, none has chosen to appear on behalf of the Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants are proceeded ex parte.3. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaint is duly supported by the affidavit of Mr P L Lamba, Vice Pres...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Parvez Ahmed Radoo @ Raju@tahir
Court: Delhi
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 35/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Petitioner Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with Inspector Dharmender Kumar, Spl. Cell. versus PARVEZ AHMED RADOO @ RAJU@TAHIR ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Manu Sharma, Ms.Ridhima Mandhar and Mr.Abhir Dutt, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER0809.2014 % 1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated June 06, 2013 acquitting Parvez Ahmed Radoo @ Raju @ Tahir the respondent herein for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosives Act, 1884 (ES Act) and under Sections 17/18/20/23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAP Act).2. The prosecution alleges that Parvez was apprehended on October 14, 2006 near Azadpur Fruit market having strolley bag which contained brown granulated oil based explosive weighing 3 kg and `10 lakhs besides the electronic detonator and timer.3. Learned counsel for the State submits th...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal @ Ram Singh and anr Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: September 08, 2014 + CRL.A. 1551/2011 KAMAL @ RAM SINGH & ANR Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Vivek Sood, Adv. for A-1. Ms.Anu Narula, Adv. for A-2. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP with Insp. Radhey Sham, PS Jahangir Puri. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. Appellants Kamal @ Ram Singh and Guddi are aggrieved by the judgment dated September 12, 2011 convicting them for offences punishable under Section 302/436/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated September 15, 2011 directing them to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of `5000/- for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of `3000/- for offence punishable under Section 436/34 IPC.2. Kamal @ Ram Singh and Guddi, husband and wife assail the judgment on the ground that they have been falsely implicated. They did no...
Tag this Judgment!M/S R.D Goel and Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Ok Play India Ltd
Court: Delhi
$~ 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1280/2012 Judgment dated 8th September, 2014 % M/S R.D GOEL & CO PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Ajay Kohli and Ms.Sarvodaya Lakshmi, Advocates versus M/S OK PLAY INDIA LTD ..... Defendant Through: Mr.K. Hashavardha, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) IA.No.2769/2014 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.21,42,852/- against the defendants under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit is based on 58 bills, details of which have been extracted in paragraph 4 of the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had been engaging the services of the plaintiff company for the purposes of transporting its consignments. With respect to each consignment a separate goods receipt was drawn by the plaintiff. As per business practice the plaintiff raised bills upon the defendant company inter alia in respect of the freight charges, payabl...
Tag this Judgment!Arshad Zamal Siddiqui and anr Vs. Ravinder Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
$~57. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1873/2012 % Judgment dated 08.09.2014 ARSHAD ZAMAL SIDDIQUI & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through : Mr.Sitab Ali Chaudhury and Mr.Hanjala Kazim, Advs. along with plaintiffs. versus RAVINDER SINGH & ORS Through : ..... Defendants Mr.H.L. Dasi and Mr.Shekhar Dasi, Adv. for defendants no.1 to 3 along with defendants no.1 to 3. Mr.Raees Khan, Adv. for defendants no.5 to 9 along with defendant no.6. Mr.Misbah Bin Tariq and Mr.Mohd Amanullah, Advs. for defendant no.7. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for specific performance of contract, permanent and mandatory injunction.2. As per the plaint, plaintiffs entered into an Agreement to Sell with defendants no.1 to 3 with respect to 1000 sq. yards land, out of Khasra No.372 min. situated in the area of Village Jasola, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, now known as Shaheen Bagh, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part-II, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Del...
Tag this Judgment!State Nct of Delhi Vs. Raghu Raj and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 196/2013 STATE NCT OF DELHI Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP versus RAGHU RAJ & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Madhav Khurana, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Haneef Mohammad, Advocate for R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER0809.2014 % Crl.M.A.No.4622/2013 & Crl.L.P.No.196/2013 1. There is a delay of 172 days in seeking leave to appeal against the decision dated July 17, 2012, in so far Raghuraj and Giriraj have been acquitted and co-accused Radhe Shyam alone has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 324 IPC.2. The non-application of mind in filing the petition seeking leave to appeal is evidenced by the fact it treats as if all accused have been acquitted. This explains the prayer made to grant leave to appeal and reverse the decision dated July 17, 2012. This explains even Radhe Shyam being impleaded as a respondent.3...
Tag this Judgment!