Delhi Court September 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 7 of about 94 results (0.022 seconds)Goldy Kaur Vs. Neha
Court: Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/defendant against the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 4.6.2015 and the First Appellate Court dated 26.2.2016; by which the courts below have decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the respondent/plaintiff with respect to the premises no.A-345-346, J.J. Colony, Khyala, Delhi. This property is constructed on the ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor with the suit being filed only with respect to ground floor of property no.A-345 and 346 which was in possession of the appellant/defendant. Respondent/plaintiff has also been granted damages/mesne profits at Rs.4,000/- per month from May, 2011 till the date of recovery of possession alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. 2(i) The facts pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff were that the respondent/plaintiff purchased the suit property from ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamini Sondhi Vs. Kapil Sondhi
Court: Delhi
Pratibha Rani, J. CM No.25294/2016 1. For the reasons stated in the application 28 days delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Application is disposed of. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 95/2016 1. The appellant/wife has preferred this appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated April 01, 2016 whereby her marriage with the respondent/husband has been dissolved on the ground of cruelty. 2. The respondent/husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage citing various instances which had resulted in causing mental cruelty of the level that it was not possible for the spouses to live together with such conduct. 3. At the time of marriage of the parties, while the respondent/husband was 37 years old and a divorcee, the appellant/wife was 35 years old and unmarried at that time. The matrimonial alliance was arranged through Sh.Madan Suji Uncle of the appellant/wife, who was in the knowledge of the respondent/husband being a divorcee. It bein...
Tag this Judgment!Purinma Sahni Vs. Rati Sahni and Another
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) Crl.M.A.No.439/2016 (Impleadment of State as R-3) Allowed. Crl.M.C.No.5361/2014 1. The fight is between the petitioner and respondent No.1 who share the relationship of mother-in-law daughter-in-law. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is to the order dated September 06, 2014 dismissing appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 against the orders dated July 18, 2013 and December 18, 2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 3. Vide order dated July 18, 2013 respondent No.1 was allowed to reenter house No.K-76 Kirti Nagar, New Delhi owned by the petitioner. A Protection Officer was appointed to facilitate the re-entry. Vide order dated December 18, 2013, order dated July 18, 2013 was not recalled. The appellate order affirms the said two orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 4. It is the common case of the litigating parties that the son of the appellant got married to ...
Tag this Judgment!Amarjeet Singh and Others Vs. Jaswant Kaur and Another
Court: Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs impugning the Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 21.9.2015 by which the first appellate court set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 2.5.2014. Trial Court by its Judgment dated 2.5.2014 had decreed the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the appellants/plaintiffs. Though the operative part of the judgment of the trial court is not exhaustively worded because it is seen that in para 15 of the judgment of the trial court the appellants/plaintiffs have been granted the relief of restraining the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 from creating third party interest in the suit property but the same is missing in the last operative para of the judgment. In the operative para the reliefs are granted only with respect to removal of electricity connection illegally obtained by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 in the...
Tag this Judgment!Balkar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
V. Kameswar Rao, J 1. The challenge in this writ petition is, to the order dated December 7, 2011 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground that holding a regular departmental inquiry by serving charge memorandum and following the due procedure in the manner prescribed in Rule 36 of CISF Rules, 2001 ( Rules of 2001 in short) is not practically possible and to theorder dated March 14, 2014, whereby his representation was rejected. 2. Some of the brief facts are, the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on June 16, 2000. After completion of training at RTC Sidhabari, he was posted at CISF unit, NALCO, Angul with effect from May 01, 2001 and thereafter with effect from November 1, 2004 at Ranchi; from May 31, 2007 at BIOP DEP-5; from March 1, 2008 at SSG Greater Noida, from October 17, 2009 at CISF 6 th Reserved Battallion, Deoli and with effect from November 1, 2010 at STPP Simhadri till the first impugned order dated D...
Tag this Judgment!Silicon Graphics Systems India Private Ltd. Vs. M/s. Sterling and Wils ...
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. We shall be referring to the appellant as the owner and the respondent as the contractor . It is a fight over an award passed by the majority in favour of the contractor and against the owner holding that the liquidated damages in sum of Rs.13,58,927.60 deducted from the amount payable to the contractor be refunded to the contractor. 2. The owner had its office in a leased premises at A-30, Kailash Colony, New Delhi for which monthly rent in sum of Rs.2,66,913/- was being paid. Besides, an interest free security deposit with the landlord in sum of Rs.32,02,980/-. The owner found rent burden to be onerous and therefore decided to purchase a property and the search led the owner to buy property bearing No.228, Udhyog Vihar, Phase I, Gurgaon. The building needed refurbishing as per the requirement of the owner. Bids were invited from contractors to execute civil and electrical works. The electrical works had two components. Installation of D.G. Sets and laying of ...
Tag this Judgment!Futuristic Solutions Ltd. Vs. Nirmal Promoters (P) Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This is an unsuccessful plaintiff's appeal, against dismissal of its suit for specific performance of an agreement to purchase farmland property. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the suit, by judgment and decree dated 30.07.2015. 2. The suit claim by the appellant-plaintiff (hereafter "Futuristic") was premised on an Agreement to Sell/ Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 24.05.2005.Futuristic claimed that the first defendant (hereafter "Nirmal") agreed- through the second and third defendants (the fathers of fourth and fifth defendants respectively), to sell an agricultural farm measuring 12 bighas and 8 biswas, as per the mutation dated 21.09.1993, located in village Ghitorni, New Delhi (approximately 12350 sq. yd, hereafter "suit property"). The fourth and fifth respondents were shareholders and Directors of Nirmal. Futuristic claimed that the second and third defendant acted for and on behalf of Nirmal. The suit alleged that the total agreed...
Tag this Judgment!Geeta Pandey and Another Vs. Shekhar Pandey and Another
Court: Delhi
Pratibha Rani, J. 1. Both the parties to HMA Petition No.618/2014 (Old No.595/2005) take exception to the judgment and decree dated August 06, 2014 whereby their marriage has been dissolved. 2. The husband (appellant in MAT.APP.(F.C.) No.60/2015) filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion as enumerated under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Vide impugned judgement and decree, the marriage of the parties was dissolved only on the ground of cruelty as envisaged under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 3. Since both the matrimonial appeals arise out of the same judgement as the wife is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dissolving her marriage with the respondent, the grievance of the husband is that his petition should have also been allowed on the ground of desertion. 4. For the sake of convenience we shall be referring the parties as the wife and the husband . 5. Facts of the case are not in dispute to the...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. Vs. H.E. Industries and Others
Court: Delhi
Manmohan Singh, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed the abovementioned suit for infringement of registered trademark "JOHNSON", passing off, rendition of accounts, damages etc. against the defendants. 2. The plaintiff is a Company existing under the Indian laws. The plaint is signed by Mr. Rakesh Jain who is one of the Directors of the plaintiff-Company who claims to be competent and authorized to sign and verify the present plaint and institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. The Board Resolution in favour of Shri Muni Lal Jain who is the father of Shri Rakesh Jain has been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1. The averments made in the amended plaint and written statement have been reiterated in the deposition of the witnesses of the parties i.e. PW-1 and DW-1. In addition, only documents are exhibited/ mentioned in their respective affidavits which are filed by both the parties as evidence. 3. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 are engaged in the manufacturing of the electric water heaters (excluding the i...
Tag this Judgment!ITC Ltd Vs. Britannia Industries Ltd
Court: Delhi
1. The Plaintiff, ITC Limited ( ITC ), has filed the accompanying suitagainst the Defendant, Britannia Industries Limited ( Britannia ), forpermanent injunction seeking to restrain Britannia from violating its rights in the Plaintiff s packaging/trade dress of Sunfeast FarmliteDigestive - All Good biscuit by using a deceptively and confusinglysimilar trade dress for its Nutri Choice Digestive Zero biscuit. The relief claimed in the suit is also for an injunction to restrain Britannia from (a) passing off ITC s rights in the trade dress/ packaging/ label, (b) dilutingthe mark, (c) infringing ITC's copyright in the said packaging and for delivery up, damages and rendition of accounts etc. By this application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC), ITC seeks an interim injunction to restrain Britannia from continuing to use the impugned packaging for its Nutri Choice Digestive Zero biscuit. 2. The packaging of ITC s Sunfeast Farmlite Digestive All Good b...
Tag this Judgment!