Delhi Court February 2019 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2019 Page 12 of about 750 results (0.019 seconds)Brahmos Aerospace Pvt Ltd vs.fiit Jee Limited and Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:30. 10.2018 Pronounced on:25. 02.2019 + FAO(OS)(COMM)247/2018 & CM Appl. 10465/2017 BRAHMOS AEROSPACE PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. A. Das, Ms. Rashi Bansal and Ms. Anju Agarwal, Advocates. versus FIIT JEE LIMITED AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Mohan Vidhani and Mr.Ashish Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN MR.JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN % 1. The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 17.02.2017 by which the learned Single Judge had stayed the suit filed by the appellant herein, Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd. [hereafter referred to as "Brahmos"]. against the respondent FIITJEE Ltd. [hereafter referred to as "FIITJEE"].. This order was passed under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to enable FIITJEE to approach the Intellectual Property Appellate Board [hereafter referred to as "IPAB"]. for rectification of the Register of Trade Marks in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Duggal & Ors. Vs.state
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :19. 12.2018 Date of Decision :25. 02.2019 + CRL.A. 146/2004 SUNIL DUGGAL & ORS. ..... Appellants Through Mr. Nitin Sehgal, Advocate & Mr. Ashok Soni, Advocate versus ..... Respondent Through Mr. Amit Gupta, APP STATE CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.1. Three appellants had jointly filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2004, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.86/90, arising out of FIR No.82/89, registered at Police Station Nabi Karim, Delhi, convicting them for the murder of Sushma, sister-in-law of appellant no.1, daughter-in-law of appellant no.2 and wife of appellant no.3 punishable under Sections 3IPC and Sections 498-A/34 IPC. As per the order on sentence dated 13.02.2004, the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.15,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to ...
Tag this Judgment!Ace Integrated Solutions Limited vs.food Corporation of India &Anr
Court: Delhi
$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1954/2019 & CM Nos. 9143-9145/2019 ACE INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS LIMITED........ Petitioner Through: Mr Akhand Pratap Singh, Mr Bahul Kalra, Ms Aditi Mittal, Advocates. versus FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA &ANR........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr Manoj, Standing Counsel for FCI with Ms Aparna Sinha, Advocate for R1. Mr Amit Kumar, Advocate for R-2/UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER2502.2019 VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 29.01.2019 passed by respondent no.1 (the Food Corporation of India FCI), whereby the FCI has decided to terminate the contract entered into with the petitioner and seek refund of the amount of 14,03,389/- paid by it to the petitioner. In addition, the FCI has also debarred the petitioner from participating in any future tenders of FCI for a period of five years.2. Insofar as the decision of FCI to terminate the contract and recover the a...
Tag this Judgment!Hansa Place Art Furnitures Private Ltd. Vs.dilip Kumar Sharma
Court: Delhi
$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI1 2. % C.R.P. 56/2019 Date of Order:25. 02.2019 HANSA PLACE ART FURNITURES PRIVATE LTD Through: Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, Advocate ........ Petitioner versus DILIP KUMAR SHARMA ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL C.M. No.8942/2019 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. C.R.P. 56/2019 & CM No.8941/2019 (for stay) 3. The impugned order dated 03.11.2018, passed by the Court of Civil Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi dismissing the application of the petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), is the subject matter of challenge in this revision petition.4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,08,000/- with interest against the petitioner on account of selling them wooden items/furniture. The respondent is carrying its business of manufacturing and selling the wooden i...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhir Chadha vs.state (Govt of Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 25, 2019 + + + + + + + CRL.M.C. 3734/2018 and CRL.M.A. 28743/2018 CRL.M.C. 3735/2018 and CRL.M.A. 28747/2018 CRL.M.C. 3736/2018 and CRL.M.A. 28750/2018 CRL.M.C. 3737/2018 and CRL.M.A. 28753/2018 CRL.M.C. 3738/2018 and CRL.M.A. 28756/2018 CRL.M.C. 3739/2018 and CRL.M.A. 28759/2018 CRL.M.C. 3765/2018 and CRL.M.A. 28838/2018 SUDHIR CHADHA NARENDER SINGH SUDESH JAIN RAJAT JAIN K L BAJAJ ANIL KUMAR SHARMA JASVEEN KAUR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ravinder Kr. Yadav and Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Advocates Versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. STATE & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State Mr. Sachin Datta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deeptanshu Jain, and Mr. Arpit Dewidi, Advocates for Respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR CRL.M.C. 1967/2017 and connected matters Page 1 of 4 ORDER (ORAL) In the above captioned seven petitions, challen...
Tag this Judgment!Mohit Singh & Ors vs.state Nct of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 25, 2019 CRL.M.C. 1049/2019 MOHIT SINGH & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Kr. Gahlot, Advocate versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr.M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor with SI Rahul Kumar Respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) CRL.M.A.4207/2019 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 1049/2019 Quashing of FIR No.702/2016, under Sections 498-A/4of IPC, registered at police station Shakarpur, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of 9th February, 2018. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by SI Rahul Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by her. CRL.M.C. 1049/2019 Page 1 of 3 Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that th...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Raj vs.u.o.i & Ors
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:25. 02.2019 + W.P.(C) 3271/2008 DHARAM RAJ versus U.O.I & ORS Advocates who appeared in this case: ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS For the... Petitioner For the Respondent : Mr S.N. Kalra, Advocate : MrYudhvir Singh Chaudhary. : Mr Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with : MsAnubha Bhandari, MrJatinfor UOI. : Ms Arti Bansal, MrSoumavaKarmakar, : Ms Madhuri Dhengra for DDA. : Mr D.K. Chaubey, along with : Applicant for applicants in CM APPL No.:1901/2016 CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU VIBHU BAKHRU, J JUDGMENT1 The controversy involved in the present petition relates to an additional strip of land admeasuring 100 sq. yards located adjacent to the property bearing No.44, Ram Puri, Harijan Colony, Kalkaji, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as the Additional Land). The petitioner is in occupation of the Additional Land and has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the same be regularized in his favour. W.P.(C) N...
Tag this Judgment!Manjeet Singh vs.rakesh Billa
Court: Delhi
$~12 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 26/2016 MANJEET SINGH Through: Mr. M.P. Sharma, Adv. ..... Plaintiff Versus ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Anubhav Mehrotra, Adv. RAKESH BILLA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW % ORDER2502.2019 1. The counsel for the defendant states that he has filed an application for setting aside of the order dated 31st January, 2019 proceeding ex parte against the defendant but which application has not been listed.2. Nothing substantial transpired on 31st January, 2019 when the defendant was proceeded against ex parte or thereafter and thus there is no need for the defendant to apply for setting aside of the order proceedings ex parte against the defendant and the defendant, in law is entitled to join the proceedings. The defendant so joins the proceedings.3. The suit otherwise, prior to the defendant being proceeded against ex parte, was ripe for framing of issues.4. 5. The pleadings have been perused. The plaintiff has instituted...
Tag this Judgment!Geeta Poddar vs.satya Developers Private Limited
Court: Delhi
$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + ARB.P. 133/2019 GEETA PODDAR Date of Decision:25. 2.2019 ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and Mr. Rajiv Dalal, Advs. versus SATYA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL) Through None ..... Respondent I.A. 2845-46/2019 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. ARB.P. 133/2019 2. This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 1996 Act).3. Briefly, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the incumbent Arbitrator cannot continue with the proceedings. 3.1 In this behalf, reliance is placed by the learned counsel on the arbitration agreement which is incorporated in Clause 20 of the Buyers Agreement dated 6.9.2014. 3.2 Clause 20 reads as follows: 20. ARBITRATON201 It is agreed between the parties that any dispute which may be in relation to this present Agreement would not be taken up by the parties against each other in any criminal complaint either to ...
Tag this Judgment!Waseem @ Tanni @ Tarik Waseem vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 25, 2019 CRL.M.C. 1061/2019 & Crl.M.A. 4230/2019 WASEEM @ TANNI @ TARIK WASEEM Through: Mr. Shamsher Ali, Advocate ........ Petitioner Versus STATE & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State with ASI Sunder Lal Respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.341/2016, under Sections 354/354D/506 IPC, registered at police station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 20th February, 2019 of respondent No.2. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by ASI Sunder Lal on the basis of identity proof produced by her. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, affirms the contents of her Affidavit of 20th February, 2019 su...
Tag this Judgment!