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.
Padam Chand Vaish Vs. Chaman Lal Bajaj and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
1. The petitioner who is landlord before this Court is aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) vide which the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 24.05.2008 had been reversed. The impugned judgment had held that the sub-tenant i.e. Chaman Lal Bajaj is a valid sub-tenant and his right was protected under the provisions of Section 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'); the premises having been validly sub-let to the sub-tenant, the sub-tenant could not be evicted. The appeal of the sub-tenant was accordingly allowed. 2. Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlord (Padam Chand Vaish) seeking eviction of his tenant (Madan Gopal Har Gopal). The eviction petition was founded u/s 14 (1)(b) of the said Act. The submission of the landlord was that a sub-tenancy had been illegally created by the tenant which had entitled the landlord to seek an eviction order. This petition was decree...
Pawan @ Ram Sala @ Chanda Vs. State (Govt of NCT)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Pawan @ Ram Sala @ Chanda has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for murdering Govind Sarin @ Shanky vide impugned judgment dated November 24, 2015 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life vide order on sentence dated November 30, 2015 on the strength of the testimony of the two eye witnesses Tarun Arya @ Ginni, PW-1 and Sumit, PW-2. 2. Police machinery was set into motion on receipt of DD No.38A at Police Station Subzi Mandi on November 03, 2013 at 11.15 PM informing that a quarrel had taken place in Gali Mitra Wali, Roshanara Road, House No.4780, near Mata ka Mandir. DD No.38A was sent to SI Manish Kumar, PW-7 who was already in the area through Constable Rakesh PW-15 who reached the spot and found blood in front of House No.4783, Gali Mitranwali, Roshanara Road. The injured had been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital. So SI Mukesh Kumar reached Hindu Rao Hospital and collected MLC No.8626 on which the doctor endorsed brought dead . The...
M/s. RSPL Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Sharma and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
Vipin Sanghi, J. 1. This application has been moved by the defendant under Order 7, Rule 10 CPC to seek the return of the plaint to the plaintiff for filing the same in the proper court having jurisdiction, on the premise that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. 2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit under section 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copy Right Act, 1957 alleging infringement of the plaintiffs registered trademark as well as infringement of the plaintiffs copyright, and passing off. The plaintiff also seeks rendition of accounts etc. from the defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff M/s. RSPL Limited, which has its registered office at Kanpur and corporate office at Pitampura, New Delhi is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of soaps and detergents. The plaintiff claims to have honestly and bona fidely adopted the trademark GHARI/WATCH/CLOCK since 1975. The plaintiffs mar...
Tata Sky Ltd. Vs. Nimble TV INC and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, inter alia seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 3, their partners, proprietors, directors, shareholders, officers, servants and agents, their representatives, franchisees, nominees and other known and unknown parties related to defendants, from in any manner associating with, connecting or linking through any technological means including internet switches/handles/protocols/web-tools, with the plaintiff s DTH services and the plaintiff s website www.tatasky.com and for direction to the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 not to use/refer to the tradename Tata Sky on any of the defendants websites including but not limited to www.watch.nimbletv.com or otherwise in any manner. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that it does not have any kind of business or other relationship with the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 nor has the plaintiff authorized the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to use the website, name or services of the pla...
M/s. North West Sales and Marketing Ltd. and Another Vs. IFCI Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
1. The petition claiming the reliefs of i) quashing of letter dated 18th May, 2015 of the respondent Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI) Ltd. revoking the settlement earlier arrived at with the petitioners; ii) a direction to the respondent IFCI Ltd. to forthwith issue 19 No Objection Certificates (NOCs) in respect of the shops indicated in the email dated 26th December, 2014; iii) a direction to the respondent IFCI Ltd. to restructure the payment schedule of the unpaid installments by extending the time by the period lost; and, v) prohibiting the respondent IFCI Ltd. from taking any steps pursuant to the impugned letter dated 18th May, 2015, came up first before this Court before the Vacation Judge on 10th June, 2015 when observing that the Court was not inclined to entertain the petition or grant any relief to the petitioners, the petition was ordered to be posted post Summer Vacations before the Roster Bench. 2. The petitioners applied for amendment of the petition to als...
Jiva Institute of Vedic Science and Culture and Another Vs. Raymond Bi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
Manmohan Singh, J. 1. By way of this order I propose to decide the above mentioned contempt petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs which is pending for the last more than 2 years. 2. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for seeking permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from infringing and passing off trademark 'JIVA', which suit is pending adjudication along with the plaint. The plaintiff had also filed an application under Section XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC in the suit, seeking the following interim reliefs: "(i) Pass an order restraining the defendants, their Chairman, Directors, Managers, Officers, Agents as also their hotels, resorts and other entities or anyone else connected with the defendants directly or indirectly from adopting and/or using the trade mark "JIVA" or any other identical or deceptively similar or confusing trade name and/or trademark "JIVA" in relation to any of their goods and services and the defendants be further restrain...
M/s. Symphony Ltd. Vs. M/s. Summer Cool Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
V. Kameswar Rao, J.(Oral) IA 20070/2015 1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of IA 20070/2015 filed by the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Vide this application, the plaintiff seeks to delete paragraph 14 of the plaint and substitute the same with the following paragraph. "14. That prior to 2010, the Plaintiff had been using various registered designs of air coolers bearing nos. 183511, 180555, 213308 and 213309, with the air cooler model under registered mark 'Sumo'. The Registrar has duly registered the unique design of the air cooler and granted it Design No. 227069, w.e.f 04.02.2010. The Plaintiff started using the registered Design No.227069 for its model 'Sumo' from the month of November 2010, after its registration. The Plaintiff has been using the Registered Design Nos.235189 and 198241 for its air cooler models 'Storm' and 'Winter' since March 2011 and February 2005 respectively, after THEIR Registration." 3. Plain...
Babita Yadav and Others Vs. Narendra Aggarwal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
Oral: The only issue raised by the appellants (claimants) by the appeal at hand is the total exoneration of the fifth respondent (insurer) by the tribunal by judgment 27.03.2010 in Suit No. 148/2004, fastening the liability on the fourth respondent (the registered owner of the offending vehicle) to pay the compensation awarded ( Rs. 16,61,248/-) on account of death of Netrapal Singh Yadav in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 10.04.2002 involving the three wheeler scooter bearing No. DL 1RG 2512 (TSR) statedly driven in a rash manner by its driver (first respondent namely). 2. While upholding the contentions of the claimants (appellants) on the basis of evidence during inquiry that the accident had occurred due to rash driving of the TSR by the first respondent and in its wake awarding compensation, the tribunal noted that the TSR was registered in the name of the fourth respondent and though he had taken the plea having sold the same prior to the date of accident, no evid...
Mohd Mujahid Vs. Shifat Nahid and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Mohd. Mujahid for quashing of FIR No.150/2010 dated 09.05.2010, under Sections 498A/328/323/34 IPC registered at Police Station Yamuna Vihar/Gokul Puri on the basis of Statements of the petitioner and the respondent no.1, namely, Smt. Shifat Nahid before the Court of Ld. MM(Mahila Court)-2/Shahdara, Karkadooma Courts, Delhi on 26.09.2013. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.1, 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 and the respondent no.1 was solemnized on 28.11.2005. The complainant came know that her husband in having illicit relation with a girl. The complainant tried to stop him but he did not listen to her. On 08.05.2010, the petitioner brought the said girl to the ho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›