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.
M/s. The Co-Operative Co. Ltd. Vs. D.T.T.D.C. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2016
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. The unsuccessful petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 2612/1991 preferred this appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition by order dated 09.12.2004. 2. The appellant/petitioner is a wholesale supplier of country liquor in Delhi and was holding licence granted in Form L9 under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 as extended to Delhi read with Delhi Liquor Licence Rules, 1976. The respondent No.1, the Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. (for short the Corporation') is holding a retail licence in Form L10 for retail sale of country liquor and 50o Rum in the Union Territory of Delhi. For the excise year 1991-92, the appellant was awarded a contract by the Corporation for wholesale supply of country liquor and Rum in Delhi. 3. The distilleries of appellant are situated at Saharanpur and Sahibabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh from where the country liquor manufactured by it was imported and stored in its bonded warehouse in Delhi on the basis of license...
Cartier International AG and Others Vs. Gaurav Bhatia and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2016
1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking inter alia permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, damages etc. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants are operating an e-commerce website where they are offering counterfeit products bearing the trademarks and logos of various luxury brands, including those of the plaintiffs, for sale. The defendants are ex-parte. The plaintiffs have produced the evidence by way of affidavit of Pankaj Pahuja as PW-1. The same was tendered in evidence as PW-1/A. 2. PW-1 has deposed that it has been signed on behalf of the plaintiffs by Mr. Flavio Mascetti in his capacity of the constituted, attorney of the plaintiff Companies. He identified the signatures of Mr. Flavio Mascetti on the plaint at the points marked 'C and 'D'. It is submitted that Mr. Flavio Mascetti is authorized to sign and verify the plaint by virtue of Powers of Attorney executed in his favor by plaintiffs which may be exhibited as Ex. ...
M/s. J.M. Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Sachdev and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2016
1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement as contained in Memorandum of Understanding dated 17th June, 1996 and in alternative of the collaboration agreement dated 22nd May, 1997, entered into and executed by and between plaintiff and Smt.Sheela Devi (since deceased) through her legal representatives/defendants. 2. By way of this order, I propose to decide the pending application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by defendant No.14. The prayer is opposed by the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.1 to 9 have supported the prayer made in the application. 3. The subject matter of the present suit is an immovable property being the house property constructed on Plot No.10 in Block-C, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024 admeasuring 325 sq. yards and the plot was made free hold vide registration No.9002 in Volume-I pages from 61-64 dated 14th October, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property") owned by Smt.Sheela Devi (since deceased) having the exclusiv...
Stuti Ranjan and Others Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others Through: M ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2016
1. The present writ petition has been filed by twenty two (22) petitioners seeking the following reliefs:- (i) direct the respondents to pay equal salaries, allowances and benefits at par with the regular Medical Officers and Gynaecologist of equivalent grade, employed by the respondents authorities doing same/similar nature of work, and/or; (ii) may pass such other and further order(s) as this Court may deem fit and proper in the premises of the case. ? 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.6 had launched a comprehensive health scheme in the name of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), to provide effective health care to rural population throughout the country with special focus on eighteen States which have weak infrastructure. The Delhi State Health Mission, State Programme Management Unit under the NRHM issued an advertisement on May 15, 2008 in the local dailies/newspaper for the recruitment of personnel under NRHM including Medical Officers and Gynaecologis...
Nitu and Others Vs. The Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2016
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. This writ petition is filed praying inter alia to declare Section 18 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short the Act') as void, unconstitutional and ultra vires and further to quash the four orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Paharganj, Delhi dated 21.07.2012 passed under Section 18 of the Act in respect of four premises, viz., (i) Kotha No.56, 2nd Floor; ii) Kotha No.42, 2nd Floor; iii) Kotha No.59, 2nd Floor and (iv) Kotha No.5211, 1st Floor of G.B. Road, Delhi. 2. The impugned orders dated 21.07.2012 are identical and a perusal of the same shows that the Station House Officer (SHO), Kamla Market filed applications dated 10.05.2012 and 14.05.2012 under Section 18(1) of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Paharganj, Delhi seeking closure of the four kothas mentioned above. It was alleged by the SHO that on study of the cases of the last three years registered under various Sections of the Act, it was found that several FIRs we...
Krishna Model Secondary School and Others Vs. Hoshiari Devi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2016
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated July 18, 2008 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal ( ˜Tribunalin short) in Appeal No.14/1997 filed by the respondent No.1 herein against order dated December 12, 1996 purporting to be an order of her termination from the services of the petitioner No.1 School. 2. It was the case of the respondent No.1 that she was employed as an Assistant Teacher by the petitioner school however she was not paid according to her scale. It was her case that her work and conduct was satisfactory showing excellent result. She and other teachers made a representation to the Directorate of Education-respondent No.2 to pay her salary by cheque. It was her case that due to this the management of the petitioner school became vindictive and they entangled her in various criminal cases and started issuing various memos to her. The petitioners dispatched a letter on December 23, 1996 by antedating the same to December 02, 1996 alleging that the pet...
Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs. Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd. and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2016
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. LPA Nos.202/2011 and 205/2011 were dismissed by this court by common judgment dated 24.02.2015. The said judgment is sought to be reviewed in these Review Petitions. 2. The State of Chhattisgarh/respondent No.3 in LPA No.202/2011 preferred Review Petition No.361/2015 whereas M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd./appellant in LPA Nos.202/2011 and 205/2011 preferred Review Petition Nos.373/2015 and 374/2015 in LPA Nos.202/2011 and 205/2011 respectively. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 4. The dispute between M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. and M/s Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd. regarding grant of Prospecting Licence (PL) under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 for the purpose of exploring iron ore deposits in Boria Tibbu area of Rajnandgaon District situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh, which has become part of State of Chhattisgarh w.e.f. 01.11.2000 by virtue of Madhya Pradesh Reorganization...
Surinder Kaur Vs. Ram Narula and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2016
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. The appellant Surinder Kaur filed a suit being CS(OS) 651/2009 for declaration, partition, injunction, rendition of accounts in respect of the estate of late Smt.Jasbir Kaur. Mrs.Jasbir Kaur died leaving behind one son Jai Singh defendant No.2 and six daughters including the plaintiff Surinder Kaur. The other 5 daughters Sukhvinder Pal Kaur, Simrat Kaur, Rajinder Pal Kaur and Harsharon Kaur were impleaded as D-3, D-4, D-5 and D-6. The sixth daughter Smt.Avninder Kaur has since passed away, thus her legal heirs were impleaded as defendant No.7 to 17. Son of defendant No.2 i.e. Ram Narula was also impleaded as defendant No.1. Surinder Kaur claimed that Ajit Singh her father died in the year 1975 leaving behind assets, immovable and movable properties. Vide his Will he bequeathed half of his estate to defendant No.2 his son and other half to Smt.Jasbir Kaur his wife with the declared understanding that Jasbir Kaur would make a bequest in favour of her six daughters. Thu...
Win-Medicare Pvt Ltd. Vs. Galpha Laboratories Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2016
1. By way of this order, I propose to decide two pending applications, one being I.A. No.22711/2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff and another being I.A. No.26365/2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC filed by the defendants for vacation of the interim order passed on 14th November, 2014. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts of profit, damages, etc. against the defendants. 3. Brief facts of the case as per the plaint are:- (i) The plaintiff Company was incorporated in the year 1981 and is engaged inter alia in the business of manufacturing, distributing and marketing of high quality pharmaceutical preparations. (ii) The plaintiff's key therapeutic segments include antiseptics, analgesics, gastroenterology, gynaecology, dermatology and neurocare and protein supplements. Some of the pharmaceutical preparations manufactured/marketed by the plaint...
J.C Bamford Excavators Limited and Another Vs. Bull Machines Pvt Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2016
I.A. No.23988/2015 (u/o VI R.17 CPC, by plaintiffs) 1. This is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiffs wish to enhance the valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.2,00,00,000/- and quantum of damages from Rs.20,05,000/- to Rs.2,00,00,000/-. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, passing off, damages and delivery up against the defendant. 3. It is stated in the application that since the suspension of ad-interim injunction vide order dated 12th December, 2011 on account of a mutually workable arrangement arrived at between the parties, no ad interim injunction has been operating against the defendant and the defendant continues to infringe the plaintiffscopyright and design rights in their 3DX Backhoe Loader by manufacturing and selling the impugned Bull Smart Backhoe Loader. Thus, on account of thes...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »