Delhi Court November 2015 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2015 Page 10 of about 129 results (0.009 seconds)U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. This intra court appeal impugns the judgment dated 21st August, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.7328/2012 preferred by the appellant. 2. The appellant had preferred the writ petition from which this appeal arises impugning the letter dated 19th September, 2011 of the respondent No.3 Dr. Geeta Rawat (ILS), Joint Secretary, Govt. of India initiating proceedings for arbitration of disputes between the appellant and the respondent No.2 Engineering Projects India Ltd. (EPIL). 3. The facts are in a narrow ambit. The erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board (UPSEB) placed a work order dated 5th February, 1982 on the respondent No.2 EPIL. The contract which thereby came into existence between the respondent No.2 EPIL and the UPSEB contained an arbitration clause as under: The arbitration clause suggested by Bureau of Public Enterprises shall be applicable. ? The respondent No.2 EPIL completed the work in December, 1988; prior th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Court On Its Own Motion
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The issue at hand is whether the Union Government can provide land free of cost to a Society formed with the object of providing school education, with 60% seats reserved for children of Group-A officers of the Union Government; finance the construction of a school building thereon and provide the required infrastructure to run the school. The school charging nearly 40% less fee from the children of Group-A officers of the Union Government vis-a-vis other children. This larger issue subsumes the sub-issue whether such a school can reserve a quota of 60% for the children of Group-A officers of the Union Government. 2. As is known to one and all, Group-A officers of the Union Government are the members of the Indian Administrative Service, Indian Revenue Service, Indian Police Service etc. 3. On the 7th Day of February, 1995, the wives of the then Cabinet Secretary, Secretary Ministry of External Affairs, Secretary Ministry of Commerce and ten other ladies, all o...
Tag this Judgment!Motorola Inc. and Another Vs. Motorola Auto India Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
1. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining passing off, infringement of trademark, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc. 2. After completing the pleadings the defendants stopped appearing in the matter. Therefore, by order dated 16th September, 2015, they were proceeded ex-parte. 3. Ex-parte evidence was produced by way of affidavit of Mr. Vikas Garg son of Mr. Siddharth Kumar resident of 1273, Deerfiled Park Unit, 104, Buffalo Grove 60089, USA. No cross was conducted by the defendants. When the matter is taken up today, there is no representation on behalf of the defendants. The plaintiffscounsel has made submissions. Written submissions are also filed. 4. Original Power of Attorney dated 22nd December, 2014 in favour of the PW-1 on behalf of Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. from Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. along with Board Resolution dated 19th December, 2014 has been exhibited as Ex. PW-1/86(Colly). Original Power of Attorney dated...
Tag this Judgment!Onil Sadh Vs. Federal Bank Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Jayant Nath, J. 1. By the present Writ Petition the petitioner seeks an appropriate writ declaring section 14 of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESIAct, 2002) as ultra vires and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare order dated 06.07.2015 passed by respondent No.4/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as CMM'), Saket District Court under Section 14 SARFAESI Act as illegal and void and for directions to restrain respondent No.2/Receiver appointed from taking possession or interfering with the rights and ownership of the petitioner in property No.A-27, East of Kailash, New Delhi without due process of law. Other reliefs are also sought. 2. The brief facts which led to filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the ground floor, first floor and s...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. L €™ Oreal Vs. M/s. Sigma Enterprises and Another
Court: Delhi
1. The plaintiff has filed a suit under Section 134 and 135 of Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 55 of Copyright Act, 1957 for permanent injunction restraining infringement, passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts etc. against the defendants. 2. The defendants were served by way of publication. They failed to appear before the Court. They have also not filed the written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte by order dated 19th August, 2015. 3. Ex-parte evidence was filed by the plaintiff by way of affidavit of Ms. Surbhi Bansal, Constituted Attorney of the plaintiff. A copy of Power of Attorney in favour of Ms. Surbhi Bansal has been exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1. The suit was initially instituted by Shri Sheel Bansal, the then Constituted Attorney of the plaintiff. A copy of Power of Attorney in his favour has been placed on record and has been exhibited as Ex. PW1/2. 4. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture, distribution and sale of a wide range of hair care, skin ...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Resorts and Hotels Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s. Alaknanda Properties Pvt L ...
Court: Delhi
Open Court: 1. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2008 passed in RCA No.84/2005 by the First Appellate Court, namely the Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby the said appeal preferred by the respondent No.1/ plaintiff has been allowed and the suit of the respondent No.1/ plaintiff seeking a decree of specific performance has been decreed. The respondent No.1/ plaintiff had filed the said first appeal to assail the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, namely the learned Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No.763/2002, whereby the said suit had been dismissed. 2. The respondent No.1/ plaintiff had filed the said suit for specific performance, impleading respondents No.2, 3 and 4 herein as the defendants in the suit, on the premise of an agreement to sell executed by defendant No.1/ Smt. Parmeshwari “ the recorded Bhumidhar of 1/8th share of the land comprising in Khasra Nos. 1018(1-00), 1072(1-00), 1073(1-00), 1079 (0-06), 1064 m...
Tag this Judgment!Inderjeet Vs. Management of Anu Enterprsies and Others
Court: Delhi
Sunita Gupta, J. 1. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 9th April, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in DID No. 1246/2006 whereby the claim of the petitioner/workman was dismissed as he could not establish relationship of employer and employee between the parties. 2. Brief facts of the case as borne out from the petition are that a direct dispute was filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred as workman) before the Labour Court alleging that he worked as a fitter/karigar and his last drawn salary was Rs.3500/- per month. He joined in the year 1964 and has an unblemished record. There were 40-45 employees who were denied all statutory benefits. Management withheld Rs.4,00,000/- towards the statutory benefits payable to the workman. He joined Rajdhani General Ekta Union, which infuriated the management. In turn, the management did not pay the sa...
Tag this Judgment!C.B.I Vs. Dharambir Khattar
Court: Delhi
1. By way of the present petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioner / CBI seeks setting aside of order dated 20.05.2011 thereby directing the CBI to produce the record containing the proposals sent to Ministry of Home Affairs seeking permission for interception of telephone calls. 2. Further seeks directions thereby setting aside of order dated 08.05.2015 read with order dated 15.05.2015 whereby the prayer made in the affidavit filed by the Director, CBI thereby seeking privilege under Section 123 and 124 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with regard to aforesaid documents has been dismissed by ld. Special Judge. 3. The present case was registered on 26.03.2003 against the accused persons and respondent herein under Section 120B IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the basis of source information. Presently the case is pending trial in the Court of ld. Special Judge, CBI Rohini Courts, New Delhi and is at the stage of evidenc...
Tag this Judgment!Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sudhir Bhatia
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. These appeals, under Section 72 of the Copyright Act, 1957, challenge the order of the Learned Copyright Board (hereinafter the Board ?) dated 04.04.2011, which expunged registration numbers A-51334/91, A-55885/99, and A-55885/99 upon the petition filed on 23.01.07 by the respondent/Applicant, Sudhir Bhatia (hereinafter, the respondent ?). The ground in support of the appeal is that inter alia, the Board mis-applied Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The appellants (hereafter called "Midas") claim to be pioneers in insecticides and pesticide production in the form of chalks in India. After conceiving the idea and testing it, Midas launched commercial activity under the trademarks "Krazy Lines" and "Laxman Rekha" (hereafter "the trademarks") approximately in 1989. The trademarks were registered, bearing Nos. 545608 and 54610 respectively in 1991, and the packaging material of the products was registered under N...
Tag this Judgment!Manju Anand and Another Vs. Geeta Chopra and Others
Court: Delhi
1. The present suit has been instituted by two plaintiffs against their sister (defendant no. 1) and deceased brother's widow and children [defendant no. 2 (a) to (c)], praying inter alia for a decree of partition in respect of premises No.E-29, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Further, the plaintiffs seek a decree of declaration for cancellation of the mutation letter dated 22.04.2013, issued by the civic authorities mutating the suit premises in favour of the defendants No.2 (a) and (b) and for declaring the Sale Deed dated 24.03.2015, executed by the defendants No.2(a) and (b) in favour of defendant No.3, as null and void. 2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that Shri Mohan Lal Sahni, father of the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 and Lt. Jitender Sahni was the owner of the suit premises, which has been described as his self-acquired property ?. Sh. M.L. Sahni had expired at New Delhi on 21.06.1995, leaving behind four class I heirs, i.e., three daughters, namely, the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!