Court : Delhi
Manmohan Singh, J. R.P. No.154/2016 (review of order dated 18th February, 2016), I.A. No.3624/2016 (for directions) and I.A. No.8936/2016 (for taking settlement agreement on record), by respondent and O.M.P. No.431/2015 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for seeking setting aside of the Award dated 23rd March, 2015 passed by the sole Arbitrator wherein a sum of Rs.19,02,47,938/- plus Rs.2,35,14,645/- as service tax with simple interest @ 10% w.e.f. 13th April, 2012 to 23rd March, 2015 towards claims No.1, 2 and 3 to the respondent was awarded. 2. The said petition was filed first time in the Registry on 29th June, 2015 when the Registry raised certain objections. Thereafter, the petition was re-filed on 20th July, 2015. Along with the petition, the petitioner also filed an application being I.A. No.16149/2015 for condonation of delay of 5 days in re-filing the same. The sa...
Tag this Judgment!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!Court : Delhi
S.Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The present appeal by the defendant in a pending commercial suit, impugns an ad-interim temporary injunction order restraining it from using the trademark ASHOKA in relation to edible oil, oil cakes, ghee, and related goods. The plaintiff (hereafter called Saurabh) had sued it (i.e. the second defendant/appellant, hereafter called Vijay Solvex ) for infringement and sought permanent injunction as well as damages. 2. Saurabh was incorporated in August, 1994. It manufactures, sells and distributes through its dealers, edible oil, oil cakes, vegetable ghee and allied goods. In 1975, one M/s Rohtash Industries Limited, Times House, New Delhi- 110002 adopted and started using the trademark ASHOKA in relation to goods in question viz. edible oil, oil cakes, vegetable ghee, and allied goods as well as business of manufacturing and marketing edible oils. ASHOKA was registered (Registration No.354173) as of 05.10.1979 in Class 29. Rohtash Industries sold its entire busine...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Sunita Gupta, J. 1. Mahinder Singh, in this intra court appeal impugns the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 13th November, 2013 passed in WP(C) No. 7875/2001 titled as M/s. AIR India Ltd. vs. Mohinder Singh and Anr. whereby the award dated 19th July, 2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-III directing reinstatement of appellant-workman with continuity of service and full back wages was set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent-management was allowed. 2. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Hence, we are not repeating the same except where necessary. 3. The appellant was initially appointed as a driver on temporary basis by the respondent on 29th July, 1986. The temporary appointment was extended from time to time for a period of 1 to 3 months. By the letter dated 29th June, 1987 the appellant was given regular appointment on the post of driver pursuant to his application and subsequentinterview in a regular pay scale of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) 1. In this Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), on 6.5.2016, the following substantial questions of law were framed:- i. Whether the Courts below ought to have directed for a fresh inquiry if the Trial Court had found, in the first instance, that principles of natural justice were not followed. ii. Whether the courts had the jurisdiction to try the suit in as much as the respondent/plaintiff hailed from Haryana, the occurrence had taken place at Bhopal and the Appellate Authority sits at Bombay. iii. Whether the judgments of the court below are against the weight of overwhelming evidence against the respondent/plaintiff and therefore perverse. iv. Whether any prejudice has been caused to the respondent/plaintiff or it is only a technical infringement of the principles of the natural justice. 2. In addition to the above substantial questions of law, in my opinion, an additional substantial question of law ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Pratibha Rani, J. 1. The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the order dated September 06, 2014 whereby learned Judge Family Court awarded a sum of Rs.22,900/- permonth towards maintenance to the two children of the parties but declined to award interim maintenance to her as she is a qualified Chartered Accountant having sufficient means to maintain herself. 2. It is admitted case of the parties that they got married on July 16, 2005 at Delhi in accordance with Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. They are having two children. Elder one is a son born on March 04, 2006 and younger one is a daughter born on March 12, 2008. They were living together till August 23, 2013. The appellant/wife is a qualified Chartered Accountant whereas the respondent/husband is an Electrical Engineer but running his own business. There are rival claims about the financial status and respective earnings of the parties. 3. The respondent/husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) Caveat No.685/2016 Since counsel as above appears for the caveator, the caveat is discharged. CM No.28001/2016 Allowed subject to just exceptions. FAO (OS) COMM 59/2016 1. Objections filed by the appellant to the award dated May 31, 2016 have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated July 21, 2016. 2. Ritika Awasty: the appellant, and her husband : Virkaran Awasty respondent No.3, incorporated a company Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Bush Foods ) in the year 2005 under the Companies Act, 1956. Virkaran Awasty held 98.16% shares in the Company at the time of its incorporation and also was its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer. Ritika Awasty held 1.84% of the shares in the Company and was its Director. 3. Hassad Netherlands B.V. and Hassad Food Company : respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively, are companies based in Netherlands. Respondent No.1 is a wholly owned subsidiary of respondent No.2 and w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Sudershan Kumar Misra, J. Co.Appln. No.3298/2015 1. This application moved by the respondent, Tecpro System Limited, under Rule 9 of Company Court Rules, 1959 read with Section 22 (1) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 2002 (SICA); praying that the winding up proceedings pending before this Court, be not proceeded with further in view of the proceedings pending for revival of the respondent before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR); is opposed by the petitioner, who is an unsecured creditor of the respondent company. 2. The petitioner is seeking winding up of the company, inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of a debt of Rs.1,35,89,016/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Five Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Sixteen Only) payable by the respondent company. The petition also mentions the fact that the company has suffered massive losses between 01.04.2013 and 30.09.2013; and that, while the share capital and reserves of the company for the half year en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. This joint petition has been filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the petitioner companies seeking sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation of Spice Innovative Technologies Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company) with Smart Global Corporate Holding Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferee company). 2. The registered offices of the transferor and transferee companies are situated at New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. The transferor company was originally incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 13th May, 2008 with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana at New Delhi under the name and style of Excellent Technologies Private Limited. The company changed its name to Spice Innovative Technologies Private Limited and obtained the fresh certificate of incorporation on 2nd September, 2008. 4. The transferee company was originally incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 18th June, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. A plot of land ad-measuring 8238 square feet situated in Block F Connaught Place, New Delhi, bearing No.12 and 13 was demised in perpetuity by the Secretary of State for India in Council to M/s.Elahee Buksh and Co. The title was assigned by the lessee to M/s.Sarvara Construction Co.Ltd. and therefrom to Ms.Mayawanti, whose husband Dr.Sahib Singh constructed a building on the plot. Dr.Sahib Singh and Mayawanti were blessed with two sons : Harbans Singh and Shamsher Singh who, as per an award dated July 12, 1946 which was made a Rule of the Court in Suit No.94/16 of 1946 by the Senior Sub-Judge Shimla, became the joint owners of the plot and the building constructed thereon. The share of each was 50 : 50. Harbans Singh sold his half undivided share to Shamsher Singh who, upon execution of the deed of sale dated February 02, 1963 by his brother in his favour became sole owner of the property. On September 30, 1963 Shamsher Singh sold 50% share in the property to o...
Tag this Judgment!