Delhi Court November 2015 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.
M/s. Bonn Nutrients Private Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
1. The petition was filed impugning (i) the communication dated 24th September, 2015 of the respondent No.3 All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) debarring the petitioners for a period of three years from all dealings and participating in all contracts / tenders etc. with the respondent No.3 AIIMS; and, (ii) the Tender Notification issued by the respondent No.3 AIIMS pursuant to termination of the contract with the petitioners. 2. Since as per the Roster of this Court tender matters are entertainable by a Division Bench, the petition was listed before a Division Bench of this Court and notice thereof issued. On 6th November, 2015, finding that the Tender Notification had exhausted itself owing to no bids having been received and the relief in that regard having thus become infructuous, the petition was ordered to be listed before a Single Bench of this Court to entertain the challenge to the debarment order. 3. The petition came up yesterday before this Bench when finding tha...
Bhaiyaji Gupta Vs. Devendra Chaudhary, Secretary, Deptt of Pension and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
Oral: 1. Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 28th April, 2015 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 100/2015. 2. Mr. Lalit Bhasin, learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite the aforesaid categorical order of the Division Bench, respondents are refusing to re-fix the pay of the petitioner as has been fixed by his Department, ITAT, in terms of Sixth Central Pay Commission vide communication dated 16th October, 2008 at Rs.37,750/-. 3. Mr. Bhasin further states that the respondents have deliberately concealed the letter dated 27th August, 2015 written by respondent no. 4 seeking permission to either implement the order dated 28th April, 2015 or file an appeal. He states that as the permission to file an appeal was turned down by the competent authority, respondents should have implemented the order of the Division Bench. He contends that the respondents have concealed the directive of Ministry of Law and Justic...
M/s. Bonn Nutrients Private Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
1. The petition was filed impugning (i) the communication dated 24th September, 2015 of the respondent No.3 All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) debarring the petitioners for a period of three years from all dealings and participating in all contracts / tenders etc. with the respondent No.3 AIIMS; and, (ii) the Tender Notification issued by the respondent No.3 AIIMS pursuant to termination of the contract with the petitioners. 2. Since as per the Roster of this Court tender matters are entertainable by a Division Bench, the petition was listed before a Division Bench of this Court and notice thereof issued. On 6th November, 2015, finding that the Tender Notification had exhausted itself owing to no bids having been received and the relief in that regard having thus become infructuous, the petition was ordered to be listed before a Single Bench of this Court to entertain the challenge to the debarment order. 3. The petition came up yesterday before this Bench when finding tha...
Mahender Kaushik and Another Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. Judgment under challenge dated 31st January, 2000 convicts Mahender Kaushik and his mother Rameshwari under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for having committed murder of Anita, wife of Mahender Kaushik and for having subjected her to cruelty on account of dowry, unlawful demands and harassment. By order on sentence also dated 31st January, 2000, the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one month under Section 302/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years, fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days for the offence under Section 498A/34 IPC. 2. The undisputed and accepted position is that deceased Anita and the appellant-Mahender Kaushik had got married on 16th January, 1992 and thereafter, deceased Anita started residing in her matrimonial home at A-...
Innovolt Inc Vs. Kevin Power Solutions Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for passing off on the basis of prior user and adopter of the mark INNOVOLT ?. The plaintiff claims that they are the proprietor of the mark, as it is a coined mark which cannot be appropriated by the defendant in relation to same description of alleged and cognate goods. 2. The main case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff adopted the mark INNOVOLT for a wide range of products and services related to electronic and power saving since 2005 and 2007 in the United States of America and in India respectively. The mark "INNOVOLT" was first coined by the plaintiff. It has been using the mark "INNOVOLT" worldwide since 2005 and commercially since 2008. 3. The mark "INNOVOLT" is registered in USA vide Registration No. 4070632 since 13th December, 2011. The said mark of the plaintiff is presently pending registration in India vide Application No. 2231196 in class 9 for "VOLTAGE SURGE PROTECTORS and VOLTAGE SURGE SUPPRESSORS". 4. The reputation of the "INN...
Hyundai Rotem Company Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
Jayant Nath, J. 1. By the present judgment we will dispose of W.P.(C) 7265/2015, W.P. (C) 7656/2015 and LPA 547/2015. All the Petitions and appeal are filed by the appellant company and arise from common facts. 2. The controversy centres around a letter dated 10.08.2015 issued by the respondent blacklisting the appellant company. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.03.2012 the respondent issued a notice inviting bids for the RS 10Project. The bids were opened and the appellant company was declared the lowest bidder. A Letter of Award dated 01.04.2013 was issued by the respondent to the appellant. This was followed by a Contract Agreement dated 24.05.2013. The execution of the contract commenced and is said to be continuing. The appellant has received a part payment of approximately Rs.880.2 crores out of the total value of the contact of about Rs.4500 crores. 3. On 05.11.2014 the respondent wrote a letter to the appellant company bringing to its notice about a restraint letter dated...
B. Sriram and Others Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
1. The present petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter mentioned as Cr.P.C. ?) has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Mr.B. Sriram, Mr.N.K. Arora and Mr. Ram Pal Singh for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.7/2 titled Satwant Singh Dahiya v. Shakuntala Dahiya and Ors. ?, for quashing of order dated 07.05.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-6, Saket Court, Delhi and FIR No.98/2012, Police Station R.K. Puram. 2. Factual matrix, emerges from the record, is that the complainant/respondent No.2 Satwant Singh Dahiya is the son of late Brig. B.S. Dahiya who expired on 08.04.2000. Smt. Shakuntala Dahiya is the second wife of the father of the complainant. Smt. Shakuntala Dahiya and her children were having strained relations with the father of the complainant, due to which his father executed a Will bequeathing his estate to the complainant and to the exclusion of other accused persons. Deceased was having a PPF account, a saving bank account ...
Shivom College of Education and Others Vs. National Council for Teache ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
1. The petitioner in each of the petitions claims to be an unaided and self-financed institution in the State of Haryana, established for imparting education in teacher training. It is the case of all the petitioners, that: (i) the respondent No.1 National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), constituted by the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act) to regulate and maintain norms and standards in teacher education system and being the final authority for granting recognition for conducting teacher training course, invites applications every year from institutions desirous of seeking permission to start various teacher training courses; (ii) however, the applications are invited from particular States only, on the ground of the Governments of other States having advised against grant of recognition for more institutions in their respective States; (iii) as far as the State of Haryana, to which the petitioner Institutions and all these petitions belong, no applicati...
Punjab National Bank Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
Oral: 1. Plaintiff by the present suit seeks declaration and permanent injunction for quashing of the Supplementary Bill dated 22.4.2006 (Ex.PW1/4) issued by the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,70,52,200.87/-. Plaintiff is the consumer of the electricity and the defendant is the licensee supplying electricity in the area in which the plaintiff is situated. The supplementary bill was raised by the defendant for the period from July, 2002 to 31.3.2006 on the ground that in this period the defendant billed the plaintiff only for half the units consumed instead of the full units and this was a mistake which occurred on account of the officers of the defendant wrongly noting/specifying the CT ratio of the CT meter as 150/5 AMPs instead of 300/5 AMPs. 2. The facts of the case are that the defendant substituted the old electro mechanical meter fixed in the premises of the plaintiff with a new electronic meter on 23.4.2003. Plaintiff is a High Tension (HT) consumer as it has a sanctioned load of 1...
Vinod Kumar Khatri Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal by the Assessee, Vinod Kumar Khatri, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ˜Act') is directed against the impugned order dated 28th September 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ˜ITAT') in ITA Nos. 764 and 2795/Del/2004 for the Assessment Year ( ˜AY') 1992-93. Background facts 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that a search was conducted in the premises of the Assessee on 17th February 1992. Thereafter, on 31st August 1992 the Assessee for the first time filed his original return of income for the AY 1992-93 declaring a total income of Rs. 22,400. The said return was considered to be defective and incomplete. Since the Assessee did not respond to intimation sent to him under Section 139 (9) of the Act, this return was lodged. Subsequently, in response to a notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act, the Assessee filed his return of income on 19th January 1993 declaring aga...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »