Delhi Court April 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.
Suresh Chand Jain Vs. Godavari Devi Jeswani and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2016
Indermeet Kaur, J.1. The petitioner before this Court is Suresh Chand Jain. He claims himself to the owner and the landlord in all the afore noted three petitions. Two of the suit properties have been tenanted out to a tenant namely Godavari Devi Jeswani and Others. The third tenant is Rajender Kumar and another. The suit premises qua the tenancy of Godavari Devi Jeswani and Others is shop Nos. 3911 and 3912, Gali Barna, SAdar Bazar, Delhi-110006. The third tenanted shop i.e. qua the third tenant Rajender Kumar is shop No.3910 forming part of the same property i.e. Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. A perusal of the site plan in fact shows that all these three shops are adjacent and adjoining one another. All of them face a front facade i.e. a road measuring 25.6 feet. 2. On 14.10.2014, vide two impugned judgments, leave to defend had been granted to the tenant Godavari Devi Jeswani and Others qua two shop Nos. 3911 and 3912. The Trial Court was of the view that triable issues have arisen...
Indian Beauty and Hygiene Association and Another Vs. Union of India a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This is a writ petition filed by the Indian Beauty and Hygiene Association ("IBHA") (Petitioner No. 1) and M/s Elca Cosmetics Private Limited (Petitioner No. 2) seeking a declaration that Notification No.16/2013 Central Excise (N.T.) dated 31st December, 2013 issued by Respondent No.1 has no application to retail packages which are exempted under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 ("LMPC Rules") from the requirement of having the retail sale price ('RSP') printed on the package. A mandamus is also sought to direct the Central Board of Excise and Customs ("CBEC") to issue a necessary clarification/direction to the above effect under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ("CE Act"). 2. Another relief sought is to restrain the Customs and Excise authorities from applying the aforementioned Notification to retail packages which are exempted under Rule 26 of the LMPC Rules and in the alternative "to declare and ...
Apple INC Vs. Rohit Singh and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Rohit Singh is a software developer and works as a consultant with Vyooh Low Level Computing LLP. The two joined in an action, as plaintiffs, claiming relief of damages as also an injunction against Apple Inc from using the mark SplitView or a deceptively similar variant whereof in relation to its software products. 2. The action is one of passing of. 3. As per Rohit Singh, he developed three proprietary software products targeted at the end consumers which he named SplitView, Disk View and ViewScribe respectively. As per him, the trademark in issue in the suit i.e. SplitView was the most commercial successful product. It permitted the user to simultaneously work on multiple windows on the users computer screen. He initially sold his software products through a sole proprietary concern named Vyooh and later on formed a single member limited liability company called Yyooh LCC, through which he sold his software products and in the year 2010 he gave an exclusive ...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hajra and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
Oral: By judgment dated 06.02.2014, the motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal) decided accident claim case (MACT.No. 431/2012) instituted by the first and second respondents (claimants) on 04.12.2012 seeking compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) for death of Mohd. Irfan Saify @ Mohd. Irfan that occurred on 16.09.2012 involving collision between his motorcycle DL-9S-AA-4267 (motorcycle) and Honda City car bearing registration No. CH-03-R-5420 (car), the latter admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance company (insurer). The tribunal upheld the case of the claimants that the death had occurred due to accident caused on account of negligent driving of the car and, thus, fastened liability on its insurer to indemnify the owner who was held vicariously liable. The compensation was assessed in the sum of Rs. 31,47,000/- which includes Rs. 2,35,000/- in the non-pecuniary damages heads of damages besides loss of dependenc...
K.M. Varghese (Deceased) Through Lrs Vs. CBS Publishers and Distributo ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.(Oral) 1. Today the case is fixed for framing of issues. The subject suit is a suit for declaration, injunction, rendition of accounts etc by the plaintiff Sh. K.M. Varghese claiming copyright in the book titled as "Theory and Practice of Industrial Pharmacy" by Leon Lachman, Herbert A. Lieberman and Joseph L. Kanig. Plaintiff does not claim to be the owner of the copyright but only a licensee from the owners of the copyright who as per the plaint are Lea and Febeiger, Philadelphia, U.S.A. 2. The licensee rights which the plaintiff claims are in terms of a Letter dated 10.10.1986 issued by Lea and Febeiger to the plaintiff and which reads as under:- "LEA and FEBIGER Publishers since 1775 600s. Washington square Philadelphia, U.S.A. October 10, 1986 Mr. K.M. Varghese Varghese Publishing House Hind Rajasthan Building Dadar, Bombay 400-014. Dear Mr. Varghese We have received your letter of October 3 1986. We regret to note that you have over the years accumulated a bad...
CEAT Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. The challenge by the Petitioner, Ceat Limited, in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 8th December, 1998 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT') rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for refund of Rs. 64,53,214/- being the excess tax withheld at source on the penal interest paid by the Petitioner to Sanwa International Finance Limited (SIFL), Hong Kong, since the said payment did not qualify for exemption under Section 10(15)(iv)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act'). 2. The challenge in the writ petition is also to a consequential communication dated 16th February, 1999, issued to the Petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), TDS, Circle-I, Mumbai rejecting the Petitioner's application dated 9th October, 1998 addressed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) for issuing refund. Background facts 3. The Petitioner entered into an agreement with SIFL, which represented a consortiu...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Rajvir Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
1. The petitioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi has assailed award dated 25.08.2008 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No.107/2008 whereby the petitioner Management was directed to pay the difference of wages of Mali and that of Chaudhary i.e. the wages of Chaudhary to the respondents. 2. Since both the petitions involve similar question of law and arise out of similar order, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of brevity the facts are being taken from W.P.(C) No.9324/2009. 3. The brief facts as culled out from the petition are that the respondent filed statement of claim alleging that he was initially employed as Mali w.e.f. 01st April, 1989. However, he was allotted the work of Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.2000 by competent officers of Horticulture Department and was posted at WP-Block, Pitampura, Rohini Zone, Delhi to work under the Section Officer, Assistant Director (Horticulture) and D...
Mani Ram and Others Vs. Ritu Pal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
Oral: 1. On 18-11-2006, at about 9.40 PM, motor cycle bearing registration no. DL-8SAD-4597 (motorcycle) was being driven by one Jagdish with Jaibeer and Pawan travelling on the pillion. It met with an accident involving motor vehicle described as Eicher Canter bearing registration No.UP 17B 5391 (the offending vehicle), statedly driven in rash manner by Ritu Pal (driver), it being admittedly owned by Rameshwar Dayal (the owner) and insured against third party risk for the period in question with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (the insurer). Pawan and Jaibeer died in the accident. Their dependant family members instituted accident claim petitions under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) on 06-12-1996 they having been registered as Suit no.62/06/11 and 733/06/10 respectively. In the claim arising out of death of Pawan, he being a bachelor, the petitioners were his parents (now appellants in MAC. APP.No.298/2013). In the case of claim arising out of death of Jaibe...
Prayag Scanning Pvt Ltd. and Others Vs. GE Capital Services India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Though seemingly it appears to be a case where the impugned order has to be set aside and matter remanded to the learned Single Judge with a direction that RA No.388/2015 which has been disposed of by Hima Kohli, J. be listed for fresh decision before Indermeet Kaur, J. whose order was sought to be reviewed, the reason it being settled law that if an Hon ble Judge is available and review sought is of an order passed by that Judge the review application has to be decided by the same Judge; but for the facts which we note hereinafter it would be useless and an idle formality to do so. 2. GE Capital Services India (hereinafter referred to as GE) filed a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure impleading Prayag Scanning Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Prayag) as defendant No.1. Mr.Rama Shankar Yadav, Mr.Abhishek Dwivedi, Mr.Manoj Kumar Yadav, Mr.Alok Yadav, Mr.Pulkit Yadav and Mr.Vinayak Sharma as defendants No.3 to 7, disclosing that defendant...
Shiv Shakti Trading Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. The prayer in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for a direction to Respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Beta), to unconditionally release the goods seized from the Petitioner. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner, M/s. Shiv Shakti Trading Company is that despite the imported goods (i.e. car accessories) [imported under bill of entry ('B/E') dated 19th March 2015] being seized from it on 4th April 2015, and no show-cause notice ('SCN') having being given to it under Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act 1962 ('Act') for over six months thereafter, the seized goods have not been released to the Petitioner till date. 3. The plea of the Customs Department (Respondents herein) on the other hand, is that in the course of the investigation following the seizure of the goods in question, a statement was voluntarily made on 29th June 2015 by Mr. Ujjawal Pugalia, the Sole Proprietor of the Petitioner, inter alia that "I do not w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »