Delhi Court February 2016 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Balvir S Tomar Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
G. Rohini, CJ. C.M. No.1446/2016 1. The main appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.10.2015 in W.P.(C) No.9488/2015. 2. The appellant is the writ petitioner who is a medical practitioner and Chairman of a private medical college viz. National Institute of Medical Sciences University (for short NIMS'), Jaipur. He has also been a member of the Medical Council of India constituted by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. On the allegations of submitting false documents/declaration forms pertaining to the faculty strength, nursing staff and etc. of NIMS at the time of inspection by MCI for the purpose of recognition/permission for MBBS and PG courses, CBI had registered an FIR against the appellant/writ petitioner on 19.07.2012 under Section 120-B read with Section 467 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with certain other officials of NIMS. It appea...
Futecht Project (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and A ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an interim order restraining the respondents from invoking the Bank Guarantees in question. 2. On 11th September, 2015, the following order was passed:- I.A. No.19186/2015 Allowed subject to just exceptions. O.M.P.(I) 515/2015 Issue notice to the respondents by all modes, returnable on 01st October, 2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner installed the fire fighting system in the respondent's factory as back as in December, 2013 and the respondents released all the payments under the two contracts to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner issued two bank guarantees to the respondent on 15th October, 2013 with respect to the defect liability period. The bank guarantees are valid up to 13th September, 2015. It is further submitted that there is a dispute with respect to the leakage in the fire fighting pipe lines. Accord...
ITE India Pvt Ltd. Vs. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Co ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
1. The petitioner has filed the abovementioned petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inter alia, to restrain the respondent from dispossessing the petitioner from the commercial outlet and not to act contrary to letter dated 10th June 2015 and 12th June 2015. 2. Brief facts as per the case pleaded in the petition are that the petitioner was awarded the contract for a period of ten years commencing from the COC (the Operational Contract Period) during which the petitioner is authorized to exclusively operate and maintain the facility in accordance with the provisions of the agreement dated 8th August, 2005. The possession of the same was handed over to the petitioner on 23rd August, 2005. 2.1 It was part of the agreement that the petitioner would pay to DTTDC contract Fee for the contract period starting from the COC (the Operational Contract Period) as per Schedule 2. The Contract Fee would be payable quarterly in advance before the 7th of the relevant...
Vinod Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Vinod @ Ganja was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and 307/34 IPC along with one Aman Verma vide the impugned judgment dated March 21, 2000 and directed to undergo life imprisonment for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of `2,000/- for offence punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC. During the pendency of the appeal Aman Verma passed away and thus the appeal filed by him being Crl.Appeal No.402/2000 stood abated vide order dated March 12, 2010. 2. Pursuant to DD No.16A received on the intervening night of February 15/16, 1992 from Burari Road near RBTB Hospital, Sabzi Market by the PCR van, the police officials of PS Mukherjee Nagar reached the spot. In the meantime, PCR van had already taken Rajender Kalra and his wife Rashmi Kalra to Hindu Rao Hospital where Rajender Kalra was declared brought dead. At the spot Inspector Ramesh along with the police officers found Maru...
Arun Jaitley Vs. Arvind Kejriwal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
(Open Court) 1. This application has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by defendant no.6/applicant to seek rejection of the plaint qua defendant no.6. Learned senior counsel for defendant no.6/applicant has primarily made two submissions. Learned counsels for the plaintiff have appeared on advance notice and countered those submissions. 2. The first submission of Mr. Phoolka is that, qua defendant no.6, there are no specific averments made in the plaint alleging the making of any defamatory statement by him against the plaintiff. It is submitted that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff to seek the relief of damages against all the defendants including defendant no.6/applicant, on the premise that the defendants had made defamatory statements in relation to the plaintiff. 3. Mr. Phoolka points out that in paragraph 5 of the plaint, the plaintiff has set out the several statements attributed to the other defendants made on various dates beginning 15.12.2015. However, qu...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Pale Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
1. The present petitioner, i.e., Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-management') has preferred the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 27.05.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator') in O.P. No. 260/94. 2. The brief facts stated are that the respondent-workman, i.e., Shri Pale Ram was in the employment of the petitioner-management as a conductor, B. No. 18555. On 14.07.1991, while the respondent-workman was on duty in bus No. 9032 on Patiala-Delhi route, the checking officials, i.e. , Shri Jagdish Chander, A.T.I., Shri Rajeev Wedhera, T.S., Shri Attar Singh, T.I., Shri Gulshan Kumar, T.I. and Shri Nathu Ram, T.I., of the petitioner-management intercepted the said bus and found the following irregularities:- (i...
Data Infosys Ltd. and Others Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This Full Bench is called upon to answer a reference made in terms of the order of the Division Bench dated 27.08.2012. The Division Bench, by its order of reference noticed a judicial conflict on the question whether prior permission of the Court is necessary under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereafter "the Act") for rectification of a registered trademark, during the pendency of a suit. The first view is that proceedings for rectification of the defendant's mark cannot be initiated without the prima facie satisfaction of the plea by the Court and that the suit cannot be adjourned or stayed in terms of Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Act to await the outcome of the rectification proceedings initiated by the plaintiff before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereafter IPAB ?) - if the procedure outlined therein is not followed. The other view is that such proceedings (for rectification before the IPAB) can be initiated without the p...
Sudhakar Tiwari Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. As per the award dated November 13, 2014, the appellant has been awarded a sum of Rs. 2,62,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs and Sixty Two Thousand only); being the earnest money lying deposited with the Delhi Development Authority. The Delhi Development Authority has been awarded a sum of Rs. 22,63,361/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty One only) towards outstanding license fee payable by the appellant + pre-claim interest in sum of Rs. 8,13,150/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Thirteen Thousand One Hundred and Fifty only). Pendente lite interest till publication of the award in favour of the Delhi Development Authority has been awarded @ 15% per annum. The earnest money payable by the Delhi Development Authority to the appellant has been directed to be adjusted. Challenge thereto before the learned Single Judge has failed vide impugned order dated March 20, 2015. 2. Responding to a notice inviting tender, which vide clause 1(vii) clearly indicate...
Roger Enterprises P. Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2016
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. ITA No. 439 of 2003 filed by the Assessee, Roger Enterprises Private Limited, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ˜Act') is directed against the common impugned order dated 8th May 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ˜ITAT') in ITA No. 1515 to 1517/D/97 for the Assessment Years ( ˜AYs') 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. 2. By the said impugned order, the ITAT upheld the common order dated 23rd December 1996 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ ˜CIT (A)'] which in turn affirmed the separate reassessment orders dated 25th March 1996 passed by the Assessing Officer ( ˜AO') under Section 148 of the Act for the said AYs. 3. The background to the appeal is that the Assessee company claimed to represent customers for supply of equipments required by various governments and semi-government departments/undertakings. According to the Assessee, it engages sub-agents to render the services of bringing pr...
Havells India Limited Vs. The Advertising Standards Council of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
Open Court: 1. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at some length on the aspect whether the present suit relates to a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (Commercial Courts Act). After the hearing, the counsels were verbally informed that the submission of Mr. Lall “ that the disputes arising in the present suit are commercial disputes, has been rejected and, accordingly, a short order adjourning the proceedings was recorded. Counsels were informed that a detailed order would follow. It has, thus, become necessary to record reasons and pass this order. As noticed above, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Chander M. Lall that the dispute arising in the present suit is a commercial dispute, whereas learned counsel for the defendant has opposed the said submission. Depending on the determination whether the dispute raised in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »