Delhi Court March 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.
Pfizer Products, Inc. and Another Vs. Platinum Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.(Oral) 1. This is a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiffs-company M/s Pfizer Products and M/s Pfizer Limited alleging infringement of the registered trademark of the plaintiffs BECOSULES on account of defendant no.1 manufacturing and selling the same drug under the trademark BEQSULE. Plaintiff also alleges passing off its goods by the defendant no.1 on account of the defendant no.1 using similar blister packaging having the same colour combination as that of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also claim damages of Rs.20,00,200/-. 2. As per the plaint and the affidavit by way of evidence filed by the plaintiffs, the defendant no.1 is the manufacturer of the drug using the trademark BEQSULE. 3. I may note that originally there were a total of four defendants in the suit. Plaintiffs have compromised the matter with defendant nos.3 and 4 and therefore the suit is not pressed so far as defendant nos.3 and 4 are concerned. Suit has been withdrawn by the plaintiff against de...
Arvind and Others Vs. The State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Arvind, Sh. Mahesh Chandra and Smt. Meera for quashing of FIR No.120/2010 dated 07.06.2010, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Farsh Bazar on the basis of the mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkadooma Courts, Delhi in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Shalu on 31.01.2012. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by her counsel. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 31.01.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs. The accused persons were not satisfied with the gifts etc. given in the marriage by the mother of the complainant. After the marriage, ...
Narender Pal and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
Oral: 1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.56/ 2014 registered at Police Station Fateh Pur Beri for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 of the IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, Smt.Rekha Gupta due to certain dispute regarding plot admeasuring 120 square yards bearing No.1308, Khasra No.1754 Village Asola, Delhi. The police filed the charge sheet against them; however, charges are yet to be framed. Meanwhile, the respondent No.2 and petitioners amicably settled their disputes for a total amount of Rs.8,50,000/- before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 16.02.2015 and pursuant thereto they have also entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 07.01.2016. 3. Learned counsel for pe...
Mohd. Iliyas Vs. State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Mohd. Iliyas for quashing of FIR No.47/2014 dated 06.03.2014, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Crime (Women) Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi on the basis of the statement of compromise of the petitioner and respondent No.2, namely, Saba Parveen at the Crime (Women) Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi on 13.03.2015. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first- informant of the FIR in question by SI Mohd. Rafiq. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 08.10.2008 as per Muslim rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, petitioner and Mohd. Shamim started to torture, assault and demand dowry from the complainant and the petitioner is not maintaining the complainant for the last 5 years...
M/s. National Fertilisers Ltd. and Others Vs. Enforcement Directorate
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
1. By way of the present petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioners seek directions thereby quashing of criminal complaint filed by respondent Enforcement Directorate against the petitioners. The petitioners also seek directions to quash the order dated 30.05.2002, whereby they have been summoned. 2. Since both the petitions have arisen from the impugned order dated 30.05.2002 and issues are same, therefore, these petitions are being decided by this common judgment. 3. Crl. M.C. 3003/2002 has been preferred by a Company, i.e., M/s. National Fertilizers, a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner company), whereas Crl. M.C. 5093/2003 has been preferred by employees of above named Company. 4. It is important to note that vide orders dated 03.10.2002 and 16.12.2003 proceedings against the petitioners have been stayed by this Court. 5. The facts of the cases in brief are that petitioners company deals in fertilizers, heavy c...
Deepak Jolly and Another Vs. The State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Deepak Jolly and Smt. Santosh Jolly for quashing of FIR No.429/2013 dated 06.11.2013, under Sections 498A/406 IPC registered at Police Station Amar Colony on the basis of the statements of petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Kamakshi Jolly before Ld. MM, Mahila Court, SED, Saket, New Delhi on 09.05.2014. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by her counsel. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 27.05.1993 at Delhi. After the marriage the complainant was compared to her sister-in-law and she was told that she is short and round and that the sister-in-law of the complainant is very talented in house chores etc. In the year 1994...
GSPL India Transco Limited Vs. Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatroy Bo ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
Oral: 1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking stay of encashment of the bank guarantee dated 15th May, 2014 by the respondent no.1 2. Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that the encashment letter is in violation of Regulation 16 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) as no prior notice was issued to the petitioner. Since Regulation 16 of PNGRB has been relied upon by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the relevant portion of the same is reproduced here-in-below:- 16. Consequences of default and termination of authorization procedure. (1) An authorized entity shall abide by all the terms and conditions specified in these regulations and any failure in doing so, except for the default of the service obligation under sub-regulation (1) of regulation 14 and force majeure, shall be dealt with as per the following procedure, namely:- (a) the Board shall issue a notice to the defaulting entity allowing it a reasonable time to f...
Kiran Abnashi Chawla and Another Vs. Marguerite Chawla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.10.2015 in IA No.1253/2015 in CS(OS) No.2951/2014 allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and granting a decree for recovery of the possession of the suit property. 2. The defendants in the suit are the appellants before us. For the sake of convenience the appellants and the respondent herein shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the plaint, i.e., defendants and the plaintiff respectively. 3. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent herein/plaintiff as to the maintainability of the present appeal in view of the statutory bar under Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was considered and overruled by us by a detailed order passed on 23.11.2015. Pursuant thereto, we have heard the learned counsel for both the parties on merits of the case. 4. The plaintiff filed CS(OS) No.2951/201...
Tirathram Shah Charitable Trust and Another Vs. M/s. Anjali Birla Sawh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J 1. These appeals arise out of common order dated 23.09.2013 in CS (OS) 1291 of 2010, whereby the learned single judge has dismissed the applications {IA 16634/2010 (filed by appellants in FAO(OS) 471/2015) and IA 16958/2010 (filed by appellants in FAO(OS) 487/2015)} under order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC). 2. Mrs. Anjali Birla Sawhney wife of Late Mr. Pavan Chander Mohan Sawhney and her daughter Ms. Shreya Sawhney have filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. They seek a declaration that either of them are entitled to be appointed as trustees of the Tirathram Shah Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) and the appointment of any other person as a trustee in place of Mr. Pavan Chander Mohan Sawhney is void ab initio and the appointment of Geeta Rajpal is against the Trust Deed, intention of the settler and the family settlement. Further consequential injunctive reliefs are also so...
Jagbir Singh Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
G.S. Sistani, J. Oral: 1. The present Criminal Leave Petition has been filed under section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Appellant seeking leave to appeal against the impugned order dated 11.12.15 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (South-West)-02 Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 69/13. 2. The material facts relevant and necessary for disposal of the present leave petition are that on 01.06.2013, on receipt of an information regarding admission of injured Manisha, SI Rajesh along with Ct. Hari Mohan reached Balaji hospital, where she was declared unfit for statement. SI Rajesh reached at the spot of occurrence i.e. village Jharoda Kalan, where the crime team was called and inspected the spot. Since the incident took place within seven years of marriage of the injured, SDM was also informed, who recorded the statement (Ex.PW1/DA) of Jagbir Singh, father of Manisha wherein no allegations were made against the in-laws of Manisha. On 02.06.2013, the in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »