Delhi Court November 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.
President & Fellows of Harv and College vs.shri Rajesh Goyal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
$~35. * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 2450/2015 Judgment dated 02nd November, 2016 PRESIDENT & FELLOWS OF HARV AND COLLEGE Through : Ms. Parul Singh, Advocate versus ..... Plaintiff SHRI RAJESH GOYAL ..... Defendant Through : Mr. Pratap Singh and Mr. Anwedra CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI Singh, Advocates G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for infringement and passing off of the mark Harvard seeking a decree against the defendant restraining them from using the mark. The plaintiff is the President & Fellows of Harvard College incorrectly mentioned as the President & Fellows of Harv and College.2. Despite service, the written statement has not been filed within the statutory period. The matter as passed over once and called second time to enable the counsels to take instructions in the matter. Counsel for the defendant submits that the defendant has no objection if the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and agai...
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd & Anr vs.sarath Kumar Reddy G
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
% + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:02. 11.2016 CS(OS) 1141/2013 GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD & ANR ..... Plaintiffs versus ..... Defendant SARATH KUMAR REDDY G Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Plaintiff For the Defendant CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU : Mr Daleep Kumar. : None being ex parte. VIBHU BAKHRU, J JUDGMENT1 The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for Permanent Injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, damages, delivery up, etc. Plaintiff no 1, GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited (hereafter 'GSK India'), is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Plaintiff no 2, SmithKline Beecham Limited (hereafter 'SmithKline Beecham') is a company formed and existing under the laws of England and Wales. The plaintiffs are stated to be the members of the GlaxoSmithKline Group (hereafter 'GSK Group') of which GlaxoSmithKline Plc (hereafter 'GSK Plc') is the parent company. It is stated that GSK ...
Devender Kumar vs.delhi Development Authority and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25 & 26 * + W.P.(C) 4677/2016 SHAMA ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Hemant Singh with Mr.Tarun versus Khanna, Advocates. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through Ms.Manika Tripathy Pandey with Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocates for DDA. Ms.Sakshi Popli, Advocate for R- 2/SDM Punjabi Bagh. Mr.Pradeep Kumar Kanoongo from SDM Office, Punjabi Bagh. + W.P.(C) 4741/2016 RAJENDER KUMR ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Hemant Singh with Mr.Tarun Khanna, Advocates. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through Ms.Manika Tripathy Pandey with Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocates for DDA. Mr.Gaurav Varma, Advocate for R-2. Mr.Pradeep Kumar Kanoongo from SDM Office, Punjabi Bagh. + W.P.(C) 12115/2015 PYARE LAL ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Hemant Singh with Mr.Tarun Khanna, Advocates. Page 1 of 9 W.P.(C) 4677/2016 & Ors. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through Ms.Manika...
Nikitasha Home Appliances Pvt Ltd. Vs.pradeep Kapahi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: November 02, 2016 + FAO612015 & C.M.No.3555/2015 NIKITASHA HOME APPLIANCES PVT LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. M.K. Miglani and Mr. Jithi M. George, Advocates Versus PRADEEP KAPAHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mohan Vidhan, Mr. Rahul Vidhani and Ms. Gita, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % Impugned order of 13th November, 2014 decides three applications JUDGMENT (ORAL) pertaining to the trademark Niki Tasha. The first two applications related to modification of the order of 13th October, 2011 whereby appellant was permitted to use the said trademark for goods falling under Class 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 whereas respondent was permitted to sell the goods under Class 7 under the same trademark. It is common case of the parties that the need to seek revocation of the order of 13th October, 2011 arose because the trademark for the above said two classes Page 1 of 5 FAO612015 held by the parties was ca...
m.k.overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs.pr.commissioner of Income Tax-06
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~18-22 & 7 * % + DECIDED ON:02. 11.2016 W.P. (C) 3837/2016, CM APPL.16315/2016 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY ........ Petitioner PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21 ..... Respondent versus W.P. (C) 3839/2016, CM APPL.16318/2016 NASIRA BEGUM PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21 ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner versus W.P. (C) 3841/2016, CM APPL.16320/2016 ARSHIA AHMED QURESHI PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21 ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner versus W.P. (C) 3842/2016, CM APPL.16322/2016 M.K. LEATHER TRADING COMPANY PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21 ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner versus W.P. (C) 3843/2016, CM APPL.16324/2016 MOHD. KAMIL PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21 ..... Respondent versus ........ Petitioner W.P.(C) 9935/2016, CM APPL.39493-39495/2016 M. K. OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 06 ..... Respondent ....... Petitioner versus Appearance: Mr. Jayant K. Mehta with Mr. Saurabh Dev Karan Singh and Mr. S...
Rajender Kumr vs.delhi Development Authority & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25 & 26 * + W.P.(C) 4677/2016 SHAMA ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Hemant Singh with Mr.Tarun versus Khanna, Advocates. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through Ms.Manika Tripathy Pandey with Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocates for DDA. Ms.Sakshi Popli, Advocate for R- 2/SDM Punjabi Bagh. Mr.Pradeep Kumar Kanoongo from SDM Office, Punjabi Bagh. + W.P.(C) 4741/2016 RAJENDER KUMR ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Hemant Singh with Mr.Tarun Khanna, Advocates. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through Ms.Manika Tripathy Pandey with Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocates for DDA. Mr.Gaurav Varma, Advocate for R-2. Mr.Pradeep Kumar Kanoongo from SDM Office, Punjabi Bagh. + W.P.(C) 12115/2015 PYARE LAL ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Hemant Singh with Mr.Tarun Khanna, Advocates. Page 1 of 9 W.P.(C) 4677/2016 & Ors. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through Ms.Manika...
Maruti Udyog Ltd vs.classic Motors Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:2. d November, 2016. CS(OS) 87/1998, IA No.353/1998 (u/O XXXVIII R-5 CPC), IA No.4241/1998 (u/O VI R-17 CPC), IA No.9833/1998 (u/O I R-10 CPC) & IA No.11482/1998 (u/S8of Arbitration Act) & IA No.9310/1999 (u/S151CPC) MARUTI UDYOG LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Mudit Shrama and Mr. Tanmaya Nirmal, Advs. Versus CLASSIC MOTORS LTD. AND ANR. Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv. ..... Defendants AND CS(OS) 74/2016 (earlier OMP No.107 of 1999) & IA No.8518/2008 (u/O VI R-17 CPC) MARUTI UDYOG LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Mudit Shrama and Mr. Tanmaya Nirmal, Advs. Versus CLASSIC MOTORS LTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv. ..... Defendant CS(OS) No.87/1998 was filed by Maruti Udyog Ltd. (MUL) against Classic Motors Ltd. (CML) and Mr. Narender Anand for recovery of CS(OS) Nos.87/1998 & 74/1016 Page 1 of 26 Rs.4,26,93,000/- with interest, pleading: (i) that MUL, had in the ye...
Arshia Ahmed Qureshi vs.pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-21
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~18-22 & 7 * % + DECIDED ON:02. 11.2016 W.P. (C) 3837/2016, CM APPL.16315/2016 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY ........ Petitioner PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21 ..... Respondent versus W.P. (C) 3839/2016, CM APPL.16318/2016 NASIRA BEGUM PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21 ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner versus W.P. (C) 3841/2016, CM APPL.16320/2016 ARSHIA AHMED QURESHI PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21 ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner versus W.P. (C) 3842/2016, CM APPL.16322/2016 M.K. LEATHER TRADING COMPANY PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21 ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner versus W.P. (C) 3843/2016, CM APPL.16324/2016 MOHD. KAMIL PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21 ..... Respondent versus ........ Petitioner W.P.(C) 9935/2016, CM APPL.39493-39495/2016 M. K. OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 06 ..... Respondent ....... Petitioner versus Appearance: Mr. Jayant K. Mehta with Mr. Saurabh Dev Karan Singh and Mr. S...
Bimla Aggarwal vs.m/s Gupta International & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
$~A-11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision :2. 11.2016 + TR.P.(C.) 117/2016 & CM Nos.38068-38069/2016 BIMLA AGGARWAL ........ Petitioner Through Mr.P.D.Gupta, Sr.Adv.with Mr.Abhishek Gupta, Advocate versus M/S GUPTA INTERNATIONAL & ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr.Anil Kumar Gupta, Ms.Nishtha Garg and Mr.Abhishek Rana, Advocates for R-1 to R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. By the present petition filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner seeks transfer of Suit No.226 /2016 (re-numbered as CS(OS)612827/2016) titled as M/s Gupta International and Others vs. Ashok Kumar Singhal & Another pending in the court of Ms.Savita Rao, Additional District Judge (West) to be tried before Commercial Division of this court. The admitted case of the parties is that the subject matter of the suit is a commercial dispute. M/s Gupta International, Smt.Bimla Gupta and Shri Om Prakash Gupta i.e. the respondents No.1 to 3 fi...
Saroj vs.parveen Kumar & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
$~16 * + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA8552016 & C.M. Nos. 40582-40583/2016 SAROJ Through: Mr. P.K. Nayyar, Advocate. ..... Appellant versus PARVEEN KUMAR & ANR Through: ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % The present appeal has been instituted by the appellant(mother of the ORDER0211.2016 respondent No.1 & mother-in-law of the respondent No.2), assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.5.2016, passed by the learned ADJ in a suit for possession, damages and permanent injunction instituted by her in respect of part of premises No.D-24/24, Gali No.6, Vijay Colony, 3rd Pusta, New Usmanpur, Delhi.2. Under the impugned judgment, the trial court has held that the appellant (plaintiff in the suit) has miserably failed to prove the ownership of the suit premises and is therefore disentitled from seeking a decree of possession and damages etc. against the respondents. It has also been observed that the appellant claims herself to be the owner of the sui...
- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »