Delhi Court January 2019 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2019 Page 20 of about 755 results (0.013 seconds)Dsm Sinochem Pharmaceuticals Netherlands b.v & Anr. Vs.sinopharm Weiqi ...
Court: Delhi
$~OS-20 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:24. 01.2019 CS(COMM) 78/2017 DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS NETHERLANDS B.V & ANR. Through Mr.Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Nancy Roy and Ms.Shreya Sethi, Advs. ..... Plaintiffs versus SINOPHARM WEIQIDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO (WQD) & ANR. ..... Defendants Through Mr.Jayant Mehta, Ms.Rajeshwari H and Mr.Tahir A., Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) IA Nos. 13959/2018 1. This application is filed under Order 39 Rules 2A CPC seeking an order holding defendant No.1 guilty of contempt of court for wilfully violating the order of this court dated 20.04.2017. Other reliefs are also sought.2. The present suit is filed for permanent injunction to restrain infringement of the patent, rendition of accounts and damages. This court on 30.01.2017 in IA No.1225/2017 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC CS(COMM) 78/2017 Page 1 of 5 noted that defendant No.1 is a Chinese entity which is stated to be inf...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs.micro and Small Enterprise ...
Court: Delhi
$~5 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 6564/2016 & CM No.26926/2016 MANGALORE REFINERY & PETROCHEMICALS LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr J.P. Sengh, Sr. Advocate with Mr Jai Bansal, Mr Shahi Pratap Singh, Ms Mrigna Shekhar, Ms Manisha Mehta and Mr Akash Mishra, Advocates. versus MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr Sanjay Dewan and Ms Nishima Arora, Advocates for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER2401.2019 % VIBHU BAKHRU, J The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, 1. impugning an order dated 16.06.2016 passed by respondent No.1 (the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council hereafter the Council), whereby the petitioner and respondent no.2 (Driplex Water Engineering Ltd.) were referred to arbitration under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).2. The principal controversy raised in the present petition is that W.P. (C) 6564 of 2016 Page 1 of 8 the i...
Tag this Judgment!Harbansh Dayal Mathur vs.uoi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:24. h January, 2019. + W.P.(C) 2307/2003 HARBANSH DAYAL MATHUR Through: Ms. Meenu Mainee, Adv. ........ Petitioner UOI & ORS. versus Through: Mr. Ashok Singh, Adv. for UOI ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J.(ORAL) % 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter, "the Tribunal"]. dated 04.09.2002 by which his application [O.A. 250/2002]. has been dismissed, as also by the Tribunal's order dated 15.11.2002 by which his application for review [R.A. 273/2002]. has been rejected.2. The petitioner joined the services of the railways as a Clerk on 27.07.1963 in the Mechanical Cadre. He was promoted as an Assistant Superintendent with effect from 01.01.1984 by an order dated 08.02.1985. He claims to have been "transferred" to a field organization of the Railways, namely the Central Organization for Modernization...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Crocs Inc Usa vs.m/s Relaxo Footware Ltd
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * Reserved on:08. 05.2018 Pronounced on:24. 01.2019 FAO(OS) (COMM) 79/2018 & CM APPL. 17362-65/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA versus M/S LIBERTY SHOES LTD & ANR ..... Appellant ........ RESPONDENTS FAO(OS) (COMM) 80/2018 & CM APPL. 17366-69/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA versus M/S AQUALITE INDIA LTD & ORS ..... Appellant ........ RESPONDENTS FAO(OS) (COMM) 81/2018 & CM APPL. 17370-73/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA ..... Appellant versus M/S ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS FAO(OS) (COMM) 82/2018 & CM APPL. 17374-77/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA versus M/S AQUALITE INDIA LTD & ANR. FAO(OS)(COMM)No.79/2018 & connected matters ..... Appellant ........ RESPONDENTS Page 1 of 4 + + + + + + + + + FAO(OS) (COMM) 83/2018 & CM APPL. 17378-81/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA ..... Appellant versus BIOWORLD MERCHANDISING INDIA LTD. & ANR.... RESPONDENTS FAO(OS) (COMM) 84/2018 & CM APPL. 17382-85/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA versus M/ S BATA INDIA LTD & ORS ..... Appellant ........ RESPOND...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Gabbar Singh & Others vs.the State (The Govt of Nct of Delhi) & A ...
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 24, 2019 CRL.M.C. 4481/2018 SHRI GABBAR SINGH & OTHERS ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajendra Sharma, Advocate versus THE STATE (THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. M. P. Singh, APP for the State with SI Ajay Kumar, P. S. Rajouri Garden Respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) CRL.M.C. 4481/2018 Quashing of FIR No.180/2009, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of IPC, registered at police station Rajouri Garden, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of respondent No.2 of 10th August, 2018. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- is the State submits that complainant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so by the Investigating Officer. respondent No.2, present in the Court Respondent No.2, present in the Court, affirms the contents of her affidavit and submits that she is happily residing with the petitioner- husband for...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Khub Singh vs.land and Building Department
Court: Delhi
$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13076/2018 SHRI KHUB SINGH Judgment dated:24. h January, 2019 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. T. Banerjee, Advocate. versus LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ..... Respondent Through: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA JUDGMENT1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land admeasuring 23 bighas and 08 biswas was acquired by the LAC and as per the policy the petitioner was entitled for an alternative plot. He further submits that the petitioner moved an application before the concerned department i.e. Land and Building, and since then the application has not been put in further process and prays that the respondent be directed to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with rules and policy. W.P.(C) 13076/2018 Page 1 of 2 2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the application is in consideration and shall be decided as per the running seniority list.3. Keeping in view...
Tag this Judgment!Daman Kranti & Anr. Vs.jeet Ram Bhatt
Court: Delhi
$~21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:24. h January, 2019 + CRL.M.C. 939/2018 and Crl.M.A.3343/2018, 12469/2018 DAMAN KRANTI & ANR. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Lave Kumar Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv. & Mr. Sumit, Advocates versus JEET RAM BHATT Through: Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj, Advocate ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The second petitioner is the Chief Editor of a weekly publication in the name and style of Daman Kranti (the first petitioner) stated to have national circulation. In their periodical issued for 18th - 24th September, 2016, they had published, what purports to be a news item in Hindi, the caption whereof called upon anti-corruption branch to carry out investigation into scams of the Hindi and Sanskrit Academy (described as an entity established by Government of Delhi) of which the respondent is the Secretary. The respondent is mentioned by name in the said publication and there are allegations made ca...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Crocs Inc Usa vs.m/s Action Shoes Pvt Ltd & Ors
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * Reserved on:08. 05.2018 Pronounced on:24. 01.2019 FAO(OS) (COMM) 79/2018 & CM APPL. 17362-65/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA versus M/S LIBERTY SHOES LTD & ANR ..... Appellant ........ RESPONDENTS FAO(OS) (COMM) 80/2018 & CM APPL. 17366-69/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA versus M/S AQUALITE INDIA LTD & ORS ..... Appellant ........ RESPONDENTS FAO(OS) (COMM) 81/2018 & CM APPL. 17370-73/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA ..... Appellant versus M/S ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS FAO(OS) (COMM) 82/2018 & CM APPL. 17374-77/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA versus M/S AQUALITE INDIA LTD & ANR. FAO(OS)(COMM)No.79/2018 & connected matters ..... Appellant ........ RESPONDENTS Page 1 of 4 + + + + + + + + + FAO(OS) (COMM) 83/2018 & CM APPL. 17378-81/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA ..... Appellant versus BIOWORLD MERCHANDISING INDIA LTD. & ANR.... RESPONDENTS FAO(OS) (COMM) 84/2018 & CM APPL. 17382-85/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA versus M/ S BATA INDIA LTD & ORS ..... Appellant ........ RESPOND...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Crocs Inc Usa vs.kidz Palace & Ors
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * Reserved on:08. 05.2018 Pronounced on:24. 01.2019 FAO(OS) (COMM) 79/2018 & CM APPL. 17362-65/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA versus M/S LIBERTY SHOES LTD & ANR ..... Appellant ........ RESPONDENTS FAO(OS) (COMM) 80/2018 & CM APPL. 17366-69/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA versus M/S AQUALITE INDIA LTD & ORS ..... Appellant ........ RESPONDENTS FAO(OS) (COMM) 81/2018 & CM APPL. 17370-73/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA ..... Appellant versus M/S ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS FAO(OS) (COMM) 82/2018 & CM APPL. 17374-77/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA versus M/S AQUALITE INDIA LTD & ANR. FAO(OS)(COMM)No.79/2018 & connected matters ..... Appellant ........ RESPONDENTS Page 1 of 4 + + + + + + + + + FAO(OS) (COMM) 83/2018 & CM APPL. 17378-81/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA ..... Appellant versus BIOWORLD MERCHANDISING INDIA LTD. & ANR.... RESPONDENTS FAO(OS) (COMM) 84/2018 & CM APPL. 17382-85/2018 M/S CROCS INC USA versus M/ S BATA INDIA LTD & ORS ..... Appellant ........ RESPOND...
Tag this Judgment!P J vs.r J
Court: Delhi
$~4 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgement:24. h January, 2019 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 129/2018 P J R J CORAM: ..... Appellant Through Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate versus Through Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Advocate ..... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 08.03.2018 passed by the Family Court on an application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance for the son, who is a child with special needs. The Family Court has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to be paid to the respondent (child) in addition to the expenses being incurred by the appellant as claimed by him towards household, medicines, etc.2. Ms. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is not in dispute that the appellant is a visually impaired person since 2001, although he continued to carry on his business with his disability, but since 20...
Tag this Judgment!