Delhi Court November 2015 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2015 Page 9 of about 129 results (0.031 seconds)Tata Sons Limited and Another Vs. Aniket Singh
Court: Delhi
1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of right to privacy, right to publicity, damages, passing off etc. 2. The plaintiff No.1 Company, Tata Sons Ltd. instituted the suit and was signed by Mr. V. Gurumoorthi, the duly Authorized Signatory of plaintiff No.1 Company. The Power of Attorney and the Board Resolution issued in favour of Mr. V. Gurumoorthi to sign and verify the pleadings as well as institute the present suit on behalf of Plaintiff No.1 Company is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1 and Ex. PW- 1/2 respectively. 3. The plaintiff No. 2 Mr. Cyrus Pallonji Mistry, has signed the plaint who is the Chairman of plaintiff No.1 Company who was the Deputy Chairman of the said Company at the time of institution of suit. Mr. V. Gurumoorthi is the Authorized Signatory of plaintiff No. 2 and is authorized by virtue of a 'letter of authority' dated 12th March, 2012, executed in his favour by plaintiff No. 2. The said original letter of authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Others Vs. Devi Krishan Sharma
Court: Delhi
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J. 1. The present writ petition challenges the correctness of the order dated 11.09.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3684/2012, whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the said O.A. filed by the petitioner. 2. The facts in a nutshell are as under: The Applicant was under suspension for the period, i.e. 21.04.2005 to 13.04.2006 and thereafter he was facing departmental enquiry proceedings. Ultimately, he was removed from service on 15.3.2011. Prior to his suspension, he drew his annual increment on 01.08.2004 and in the normal course; the next increment was due for him on 01.08.2005. Since the Applicant was under suspension during the aforesaid period, he was not granted the said increment. By the time, the Applicant was reinstated in service w.e.f. 13.4.2006, on the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, the system of uniformity in granting annual increments was introduced w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Therefore, he became entitled to get his n...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Indian Council of Arbitration and ...
Court: Delhi
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by Steel Authority of India Limited (hereafter SAIL'), inter alia, praying as under:- (a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order quashing the appointment of Sole Arbitrator by Respondent no.1 that was not supplied to us. (b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order quashing the proceedings carried out by the learned Sole Arbitrator pursuant to the appointment by Respondent no.1 ? 2. The controversy involved in the present petition relates to the arbitration proceedings commenced by the Respondent No.2, Great Eastern Shipping Ltd. (hereafter GE Shipping) in relations to a Charter Party dated 19th December, 2007 entered into between the SAIL and GE Shipping whereby GE Shipping had agreed to carry a cargo of bulk coking coal from 1/2 safe berth(s) Haypoint, Australia to 1/2 safe berth(s), Visakhapatnam/Paradip/Haldia, India. Disputes arose between SAIL and GE ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Kumar Komath and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) 1. The controversy involved in the present intra-court appeal relates to transfer of two employees of Airports Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the AAI'). 2. Mr.Ajit Kumar Komath (hereinafter referred to as Mr.Komath') and Tarun Chander Chandolia (hereinafter referred to as Mr.Chandolia') are working for on the post of Assistant General Manager (ATC) and posted at Indira Gandhi International Airport (hereinafter referred to as IGI Airport'), New Delhi till July 16, 2015. 3. On June 23, 2015 AAI issued a list for transfer of officers working on the post of Assistant General Manager (ATC) for the year 2015-2016. Most significantly, the names of Mr.Komath and Mr.Chandolia did not figure in said list. In fact, five officers viz. Manjit Singh, Vipin Kumar, Pramod Kumar Sharma, Santosh Kumar Maurya and Anup Kumar. A further perusal of transfer list dated June 23, 2015 shows that two officers viz. Satya Pal Singh and Hari Om Sharma were exempted from...
Tag this Judgment!Hamdard National Foundation (India) and Another Vs. Abdul Jalil and Ot ...
Court: Delhi
1. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts of profits, delivery up, etc. against the defendants. 2. Evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Javed Akhtar, PW-1 has been tendered as PW-1/A. PW-1 is the Deputy Manager, Legal of Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) also trading as Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories, the plaintiff No. 2 in the present suit and is also the Constituted Attorney of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2.He has access to the books and records of the plaintiffs and is fully conversant with all spheres of its business activities. 3. Photocopies of the Power of Attorney in favour of PW-1 have been exhibited as Ex. PW-1/3. The original Power of Attorney has not been filed, as it is required in numerous proceedings all over the country. He identifies his signatures on the plaint and verification. 4. It has come on record that plaintiff No.1 is a charitable institution registered under the Societies A...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Jute Investment Company Ltd. and Another Vs. IDBI Capital Market ...
Court: Delhi
1. By way of this common order, I propose to decide the two applications filed by the two respective plaintiffs in the suit for declaration and permanent injunction being common issue involved in the matter. The first suit was filed by M/s. Jute Investment Company Limited on 8th October, 2015 and summon and notice was issued for 12th October, 2015 and on 12th October, 2015, the second suit was filed by M/s. Rameshwara Jute Mills Ltd. M/s. Universal Cables Limited is the defendant No.4 in CS (OS) No.3082/2015 and is defendant No.1 in CS (OS) No.3105/2015 (hereinafter referred as company or defendant No.1 for convenience). 2. The plaintiff has filed the above mentioned suit seeking inter alia the following reliefs: a) Pass a decree declaring the Letter of Offer/ Abridged Letter of Offer both dated 14th September 2015 issued by Defendant No. 4 as unlawful, null and void ab-initio; b) Pass a decree of Permanent Injunction thereby injuncting the Defendants from proceeding with the Letter of...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Rashidullah Khan and Others Vs. Government of NCT Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. The nine petitioners being the members of the Delhi Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad (DBCP) constituted vide Notification dated 11th September, 2011 for a period of five years under the Delhi Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad Act, 1998 have filed this petition impugning the order dated 16th July, 2015 of the respondent Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) of dissolution of the said Parishad in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the said Act. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and considering the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 32 a new Parishad has to be constituted within six months of dissolution, counter affidavit was directed to be positively filed within 10 days and rejoinder permitted to be filed before today and the matter listed today for hearing. 3. Though counter affidavit was not filed but the counsel for the respondent has handed over the counter affidavit in Court and which is taken on record. He also states that the entire records have been br...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
R.K. Gauba, J. 1. On 04.07.2007, at about 03:25 PM Santosh Kumar son of Shiv Chander aged about 25 years, resident of 158, Lalita Park, Gali No.12, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi received firearm injury near bus stand, traffic light Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi and died on the spot. At the time of the incident, he was carrying a bag containing cash in the sum of Rupees Eight Lakh Sixty Five Thousand. The first information report (FIR) (Ex.PW1/A) was registered on the basis of statement (Ex.PW2/A) of Miraj Malik (PW2), resident of Toli Mohalla near Chand Masjid, Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P. with allegations to the effect that the appellant had waylaid the victim (the deceased) and after firing at him, had robbed him of the bag containing the money and that he had been apprehended by the first informant (PW2), assisted by his companion Wahid Malik (PW9). 2. Two persons, including the appellant, were put to trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (East) in sessions case (No.84/2013) on the basis of t...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Brigade Enterprises Limited Vs. M/s. Kamani Tubes Ltd. and Anothe ...
Court: Delhi
G.S. Sistani, J. (Oral) CAV 1180/2015 1. Mr.Sethi, learned Senior Advocate, on instructions from the counsel for the respondents, enters appearance on behalf of the respondents. 2. Accordingly, caveat petition stands disposed of. CM APPL. 26438/2015 3. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 4. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 10488/2015 5. With the consent of counsel for the parties, this matter is heard at the admission stage itself. 6. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner under Article 226 read with Article 227of the Constitution of India against the Order dated 28.10.2015 passed by Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the AAIFR ?), by which an Order dated 19.7.2010 passed by the Board for Industrial And Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the BIFR ?) by which the application (M.A. No.424/BC/2010) filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed. In M.A. No.424/BC/2010 the petitioner m...
Tag this Judgment!ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Astha Kumar and Another
Court: Delhi
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned ADJ-II Central/ Delhi, dated 16.04.2015. The learned ADJ by virtue of the impugned judgment and decree has returned the plaint. 1.1 The appellant (i.e. the plaintiff in the suit), being aggrieved, has moved this court by way of the instant appeal. 2. The brief facts, which one is required to note, in order to adjudicate upon this appeal are as follows: 2.1 It is the case of the appellant that it had extended a loan to the respondents herein (i.e. the defendants), for purchase of a vehicle. The agreement arrived at in this regard was translated into a loan agreement/ a credit facility application form dated 20.01.2012 (hereafter referred to as the loan agreement). Along with the loan agreement, two sets of documents were also executed, firstly, an unattested deed of hypothecation; and secondly, an irrevocable power of attorney (collectively referred to as documents). The said documents were also executed on the s...
Tag this Judgment!