Delhi Court March 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.
YU Televentures Private Limited and Others Vs. Telefonaktiebolaget LM ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
G. Rohini, CJ. CRL.M.A. No.18179/2015 in LPA No.888/2015 CRL.M.A. No.18178/2015 in LPA No.889/2015 1. The respondent No.1 in LPA Nos.888 and 889/2015 filed these two applications under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) alleging that the appellants/non-applicants made false statements on oath in the said appeals and, therefore, it is necessary to refer the matter to the concerned Magistrate for appropriate action under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. 2. We may at the outset, refer to the relevant facts in brief. 3. The applicant/Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) (for short 'LM Ericsson' is the plaintiff in C.S.(OS) No.442/2013 on the file of this Court for permanent injunction against the defendants viz. (i) Mercury Electronics Ltd. and (ii) Micromax Informatics Limited (for short 'Micromax') restraining them from infringing the registered patents of the plaintiff/LM Ericsson. An interim order was passed on 12.11.2014 in IA Nos.3825/2013 and 4694/2013 directing the defe...
Bright Export Limited Vs. Central Board of Trustees, EPF Organisation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
Prakash Vaish, J. 1. By way of present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed order dated 01st November, 2010 in ATA No.642(4)2008 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Employees" Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (EPFAT) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 02nd June, 2008 and 30th July, 2008 passed by Assistant PF Commissioner under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the EPF Act ) was rejected. 2. The brief facts as culled out from the petition are that the petitioner, M/s. Bright Export Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner is covered under the EPF Act and was allotted code No.DL/26215. Vide summons dated 25.07.2006, the respondent initiated an inquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act on the ground that 27 employees of the petitioner s company are not members of the fund and that...
BBC Worldwide Ltd. Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The Petitioner, BBC Worldwide Limited (hereafter 'the Assessee') has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 30th March, 2009 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'the Act') for reopening the assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2002-03. 2. The Assessee is a company incorporated under the laws of UK and is a tax resident of UK within the meaning of Article 4 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and UK (hereafter 'the DTAA'). During the Previous Year relevant to AY 2002-03, the Assessee (through BBC World Division) operated the 'BBC World International News and Information Channel' (hereafter 'the BBC World Channel'). The Assessee earned revenues, inter alia, from the selling of airtime to Indian advertisers and from subscriptions for the BBC World Channel - which was otherwise a free to air channel (i.e., provided free of cost) - from various hotels....
Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. Vs. HT Media Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. (in short Entertainment Network) instituted a suit against HT Media Limited which was registered as CS (Comm) No.179/2016. The prayer made was to grant a declaration that plaintiffs trademark 'PEHLA NASHA' is a well known mark and by using the trademark 'NASHA FM', 'RADIO NASHA', 'NASHA 91.9. FM' AND 'NASHA 107.02' the defendant was guilty of passing of and therefore should be restrained by issuing a permanent injunction against it, its agents, franchisees etc. restraining them from using, in any manner, trademark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trademark 'PEHLA NASHA' either as radio channel titled 'RADIO NASHA' or as a mark or as a domain name in relation to any service/product especially for broadcast, re-broadcast, radio broadcast, internet broadcast, make available for listening, and/or in any other form whatsoever. 2. Plaintiff having applied for its trademark to be registered and registration not being gran...
Kanhaya Lal Vs. The Management of M/s. Swantantra Bharat Mill
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
1. Instant is a Writ Petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, espoused by the Kapra Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union for setting aside the impugned Award dated 06.11.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator ) in I.D. No. 167/1994. 2. The brief facts stated are that the petitioner-workman, i.e., Shri Kanhaya Lal, and two other employees, i.e., Shri Ram Sumer and Shri Babu Lal, were in the employment of the respondent-management on monthly wages of Rs. 1500/- per month. The petitioner-workman was deputed on winding machine and was working on the said section of the respondent-management for the last 19 years. As per the certified standing orders of the respondent-management, there are four categories of workmen, namely, permanent workman, temporary workman, badli workman and probationer. The petitioner-workman along with two other employees, i.e., Shri Ram Sumer a...
Anamika Khurana Vs. Rajiv Khurana
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) I.P.A. No. 1/2016 and I.A.No. 1642/2016(u/O XXXIII Rules 1(A), 2 and 3 CPC), I.A.No. 1643/2016 (u/S 18, 19 and 20 of the PWDV Act) and I.A.No. 1645/2016(u/S 151 CPC) 1. This suit, as a pauper case under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the plaintiff/wife Smt. Anamika Khurana against the defendant/husband Sh. Rajiv Khurana seeking maintenance under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The relief clauses of the plaint read as under:- "a) Pass a decree directing the defendant/husband to pay a sum of Rs. Three lacs per month as maintenance and also to provide a separate residence duly furnished for the plaintiff along-with all the other amenities such as car, driver, pertrol etc. from the date of filing of the present suit till the passing of the decree. b) grant 10 per cent escalation after every 3 years along-with suitable residence while pa...
Rohtash Yadav Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. M/s Morgan Tetronics Ltd. (respondent No.2) had availed a credit facility from Punjab and Sind Bank (respondent No.1). As per the parties, P.V.Khullar (respondent No.3) manages the company, and the loose expression we understand to mean that he is the Managing Director of the company. Nirmal Kanta (respondent No.4), had mortgaged her property D-49, Sector-7, Noida and 225 SBI Colony, Paschim Vihar to secure the debts payable. Two other companies named Pragya Overseas Pvt.Ltd. and M/s Shaloo Exports, stated to be the group companies of respondent No.2, are also stated to have availed credit facilities. 2. The dues became sticky. The respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act. The borrowers challenged the action taken, resulting in SA No.61/2012 being registered before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings the petitioner was approached by respondents No.3 and No.4 with a request to purchase property No.225, SBI Colon...
Padma Verma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
The petition seeks mandamus to the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to compensate the petitioner in the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the injury suffered on being attacked by a bull while walking on a street. 2. It is the case of the petitioner (i) that she is a resident of New Friends Colony (NFC), New Delhi and while walking in the local colony market doing her routine chores on 13th May, 2008, a rampaging bull gored her chest and threw her on the footpath; (ii) that she sustained serious external and internal injuries in the head resulting in loss of consciousness and multiple epileptic fits on the road; (iii) that she was taken to Sujan Mohindra Hospital (SMH) at NFC, New Delhi in a semi conscious and profusely bleeding state and was recommended to be immediately shifted to Vidyasagar Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (VIMHANS); (iv) that she was found to have hemorrhage contusions in the right frontal and left parietal regions besides fractures of the skull...
Pramod Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
S.P. Garg, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 09.05.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 141/13 arising out of FIR No. 344/13 P.S. Subhash Place whereby the appellant - Pramod Kumar was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 363/341/323 IPC and Section 7 POCSO Act punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act. By an order dated 17.05.2014, the appellant was awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 363 IPC; Simple Imprisonment for one month with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 341/323 IPC each; Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 8 of POCSO Act. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge sheet was that on 31.07.2013 in between 12.15 to 12.45 p.m. at G-560, Fourth Floor, J.J.Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi, the appellant kidnapped the prosecutrix X (changed name) aged about 6/7 years fr...
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Power Limited and Another Vs. Rosy Jain ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This judgment would cover common issues that arise for consideration in several appeals. The main judgment arises in LPA 562/2013 (Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited v. Rosy Jain and Ors.). The writ petitioners/respondents had complained that the appellant [hereafter "Tata Power" also known as "NDPL"] wrongly refused to release the amounts towards terminal dues upon the employees electing to opt for voluntary retirement. 2. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, held that Tata Power and not the Delhi Vidyut Board Employees Terminal Fund (hereafter called "the Pension Trust") was liable to make the payment. In all the other appeals, the learned Single Judge followed the ruling in Rosy Jain (supra) and held similarly that employees who opted for voluntary retirement under Rule 48A of the Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 [hereafter "CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972"] - as applicable to the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) employees and where the liabil...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »