Delhi Court January 2016 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.
SK Sachdeva and Another Vs. Shri Educare Limited and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. 1. The appellants in this appeal impugn the judgment dated 14.11.2014 whereby the interim order dated 25.04.2014 has been confirmed. The appellant has been restrained from using the trademark/trade-name ShreeRam World Schooland the domain name www.shreeram.in on the ground that it is deceptively and phonetically similar to the respondentstrademark SHRI RAM / SHRIRAMin relation to its services. 2. The respondents are the plaintiffs and have filed the suit for permanent injunction, passing off, damages contending that they had established the school THE SHRI RAM SCHOOLin the year 1988 in Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. It is contended that the respondents thereafter added further schools under the same trade-name i.e. The SHRI RAM SCHOOLin Gurgaon. It is contended that the schools under the name THE SHRI RAM SCHOOLhave carved out a unique space as institutions of excellence and are well known for their value based education. The schools of the respondents have been ranked v...
Mohit Panwar and Others Vs. Airports Authority of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
CM No. 1226/2015 (for filing additional affidavit) in W.P.(C) 2204/2014 1. This is an application filed by the respondent to take on record the additional documents. In view of the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The additional affidavit is taken on record. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) Nos. 2204/2014, 4597/2014, 8098/2015, 8110/2015, 4279/2015 and 6129/2015 1. As the reliefs in all the writ petitions are identical with almost similar facts, the same are being decided by this common order. 2. The writ petition No.2204/2014 Mohit Panwar and Ors. vs. Airport Authority of India is being considered as a lead case, even though the facts of each writ petition would be noted separately, the stand of the respondent would be seen/considered from the pleadings filed in this petition. Writ Petition (C) No. 2204/2014 3. The nine petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the notification dated March 21, 2014, whereby it was decided to redo the entire select...
M/s. Mahanivesh Oils and Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Directorate of Enforcemen ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the provisional attachment order dated 24.01.2014 (hereafter impugned order') passed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement under section 5 (1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereafter the Act') whereby the entire basement and ground floor of the property situated at E-14/3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi belonging to Smt. Alka Rajvansh has been attached considering it as proceeds of crime. 2. The brief facts that are relevant for examining the controversy in the present petition are as under:- 2.1 On 08.05.2009, an FIR was lodged by the CBI on a written complaint made by Shri S.K. Maggu, Deputy Manager of National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India (hereafter NAFED') wherein it was alleged that Mr Homi Rajvansh - the Additional Managing Director of NAFED, had hatched a conspiracy, in connivance with the directors of M/s M.K. Agri International Ltd. (hereafter MKAIL'), for m...
B Vs. UC
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
1. The present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as HMA') has been preferred to assail the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2012, passed in HMA No.251/2010 by Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi, whereby the learned ADJ dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant/wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage in her favour and against the respondent/husband. 2. The facts as delineated in the petition are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24.06.2002 at 20/194-195, Tirlokpuri, Delhi, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was consummated and two issues namely Baby K and Master A were born out of the wedlock. 3. The appellant asserts that after the marriage both the parties started living together at 20/302 Kalyanpuri, Delhi, along with her in-laws. She claims that the respondent and his family members started taunting her for bringing insufficient dowry. They sta...
Namrata Singh and Others Vs. Director General Civil Aviation (DGCA) an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
Prefatory Facts: 1. These, are two writ petitions, filed by the legal representatives of, one, Capt. Harpreet Singh Sekhon and Capt. Manjeet Kataria. Capt. Harpreet Singh Sekhon and Capt. Manjeet Kataria died in an air crash, on 25.05.2011. The legal representatives claim various reliefs including compensation and damages for loss of life. 1.1 The first writ petition, in order of seriatum, being: WP(C) 1867/2012 was initially instituted by the wife (i.e. petitioner no.1) and the minor child (i.e. petitioner no.2) of Capt. Harpreet Singh Sekhon; to which, his mother (i.e. Mrs Jagjit Kaur) was added as a party-respondent no.6 vide order dated 11.12.2013, passed in CM No. 1260/2013, and thereafter, transposed as petitioner no.3 vide order dated 22.05.2015. The transposition of Mrs Jagjit Kaur was not opposed by petitioner no.1either in her own individual capacity or in her the capacity as the guardian of petitioner no.2. 1.2 In so far as the Second writ petition is concerned, being: WP(C)...
BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Talupula Engg. Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Award dated December 26, 2006 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising three members has been upheld by the learned Single Judge as per the impugned order dated April 29, 2015, save and except the claim regarding interest. As against 12% per annum for claim No.7 and 18% per annum for rest of the claims, the learned Single Judge has reduced the interest to 10% per annum. No cross-objections or cross-appeal has been filed by the respondent. The appellant which had a laid a challenge to the award is aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge and thus our concern in the appeal would be to the issues decided by the learned Single Judge other than the reduction in the rate of interest. 2. The appellant invited offers as per a tender floated by it for supplying material, erecting and commissioning a 66KV 4CKT tower line from 220KV South of Wazirabad Grid Station to 66KV Shastri Park Grid Station. Respondent's bid was accepted. A purchase order as also a w...
Ram Kishore @ Romi and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Ram Kishore @ Romi and co-accused Rashid have filed the above captioned appeal challenging their conviction vide judgment and order dated May 05, 2000 for the offence of kidnapping, murder and destruction of evidence as also the order dated May 13, 2000 sentencing the two. 2. Vide order dated September 17, 2015 holding that Ram Kishore @ Romi was a minor on the date when the offence was committed, noting that Ram Kishore does not accept he having committed the offence, and notwithstanding he having undergone imprisonment during trial more than the maximum prescribed of three years and that too not at a place of safety, the Division Bench treated the appeal filed by Ram Kishore @ Romi as disposed of making a reference to the Juvenile Justice Board. 3. Thus, our concern in the appeal would be limited to appellant No.2 - Rashid. 4. On May 15, 1998 at 8.55 PM Sukhbir Singh lodged a missing report vide DD No.87-B at PS Bhajan Pura informing that his son Vijay Kumar aged 1...
V.K. Mittal and Others Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. Introduction 1. Five promotee Private Secretaries ( ˜PSs') of this Court have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the High Court and 13 of their colleague PSs who are direct recruits ( ˜DRs') essentially questioning the notification dated 28th March 2009 issued by the High Court that confirms the Petitioners as well as Respondents 2 to 14 as PSs with effect from 20th March 2009. An incidental challenge is laid to the constitutional validity of Rule 5A of the Delhi High Court Staff (Seniority) Rules, 1971 ( ˜Seniority Rules') as well as to an order dated 12th October 2009 whereby the technical resignations tendered by the DR PSs from the previous posts held by them were accepted, treating them as fresh recruits under the 75% DR quota for the post of PSs. 2. The essential grievance of the Petitioners, i.e., the five promotee PSs, is that they should have been confirmed substantively as PSs with effect fro...
M/s. Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
1. These are thirteen appeals by the Assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ˜the Act') pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs) 1987-88 to 1992-93, 1995-96, 1997-98 to 2001-2002 and 2003-2004. The question of law framed by the Court vide its order dated 21st September, 2004 in ITA Nos. 353, 354 and 355 of 2003, which is similar to the ones framed in the other appeals, reads as under: Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and confirming the disallowance of the amount on account of liability of licence fee and on account of interest on arrears of licence fee payable to N.D.M.C. for running the business at Chanakya Cinema? ? Background Facts 2. The Assessee was engaged in the business of running a cinema hall in the name of Chanakya Cinema at Yashwant Place, which belonged to the New Delhi Municipal Council ( ˜NDMC'). In terms of an Agreement dated 16th September, 1970 ente...
Vikas Singh Vs. Lieutenant Governor and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2016
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. On 29th September, 2014, after completion of pleadings and finally hearing the counsels for the then parties, we passed the following order in this petition: 1. This petition is filed impugning Rule 27(2) of the Delhi Fire Service Rules, 2010 on the ground of the same being not in consonance with the amendment vide Notification dated 23rd September, 2013 of the Master Plan for Delhi (MPD)-2021. The petition consequently seeks a direction to the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) impleaded as respondent No.5, to approve the revised plan of construction of house No.C-319, Defence Colony, New Delhi of the petitioner. 2. The petition came up first before this Court on 7th March, 2014 when the counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) and Director, Delhi Fire Service (DFS), GNCTD appearing on advance notice was directed to file an affidavit indicating the position with regard to fire safety clearance ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »