Delhi Court May 2019 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Relaxo Footwears Limited vs.aqualite India Ltd. & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2019
$~ * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:06. h May, 2019 + CS(COMM) 1288/2018 & I.As. 17103/2018, 1419/2019 RELAXO FOOTWEARS LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Pravin Anand, Mr.Saif Khan and Mr.Shobhit Agrawal, Advocates versus AQUALITE INDIA LTD. & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr.C.A. Brijesh, Mr.Peeyoosh Kalra, Mr.Rohan Seth, Mr.Dhruv Grover Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT I.A.17103/2018 1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, importing, exporting or in any manner dealing in the impugned product (Defendants product code: UFG145 or any product which is an obvious or fraudulent imitation of plaintiffs registered design No.294938. The plaintiff is also claiming till up rendition of accounts and damages from the defendants. In I.A.17103/2018, the plaintiff is seeking ad interim inj...
Pintu Kumar Pandit & Ors vs.state of Nct of Delhi & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: May 06, 2019 CRL.M.C. 969/2017 PINTU KUMAR PANDIT & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr.Shekhar Gupta, Advocate Versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor with SI Sachin Yadav Respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR + ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.510/2013, under Sections 288/304A/2of IPC, registered at Police Station Vikaspuri, Delhi is sought on the basis of respondent No.2s affidavit of 17th January, 2019. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is the complainant/first-informant of FIR in question and he has been identified as the father of deceased, by SI Sachin Yadav on the basis of identity proof produced by him. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the incident in question was purely accidental and he does not hold petitioners guilty...
Shahjad Khan @ Mantu vs.state of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2019
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:06. 05.2019 BAIL APPLN. 3036/2018 SHAHJAD KHAN @ MANTU versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. Priyadarshi, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with ASI Sita Ram CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.951/2018 under Sections 323/3IPC, Police Station New Usmanpur. Subsequently, during investigation, SectionsIPC have been added.2. Allegations in the FIR are that the complainant was going on his motorcycle, when he was going through the market, he saw there were 15-20 persons going in a procession and some of them were carrying swords. It is alleged that the complainant wanted to pass through, however, the procession did not permit the complainant to BAIL APPLN.3036/2018 Page 1 of 3 pass through on his mot...
Krishan Kumar Kashyap vs.the Statesman Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2019
$~ * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:06. h May, 2019 KRISHAN KUMAR KASHYAP Through: Mr.Prem Parkash Relan, Advocate ........ Petitioner + W.P.(C) 90/2009 versus THE STATESMAN LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Samar Bansal, Ms.Devahuti Pathak, Advocates 1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT The petitioner has challenged the award dated 18th October, 2008 whereby the Labour Court held the petitioners termination to be illegal and a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner is seeking enhancement of compensation.2. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent as a Store Clerk on 07th January, 1967 and he was confirmed on 01st May, 1970. The respondent suspended the petitioner on 10th December, 1994 and issued a charge sheet on various grounds inter alia that he has refused to perform the assigned work; he was a habitual late comer; he signed official memos on his own without permission; he harassed th...
Mohd. Rafiq & Anr vs.state of n.c.t of Delhi & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: May 06, 2019 CRL.M.C. 2440/2019 & CRL.M.A. 9659/2019 MOHD. RAFIQ & ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Arun Sheoran, Advocate. Versus STATE OF N.C.T OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Virendra Kumar. Mr. Harendra Kumar, Advocate with Respondent No.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.411/2011 under Sections 3of IPC, registered at Police Station Seelampur, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 24th April, 2019 of respondent No.2 and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State submits that respondent No.2 present in the Court, is the complainant/first-informant of FIR in question and he has been identified to be so, by SI Virendra Kumar, on the basis of id...
Regulus Infrastructure Management vs.super Property Maintenance Pvt Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2019
$~CP-16 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:06. 05.2019 CO.PET. 400/2012 REGULUS INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT........ Petitioner SUPER PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PVT LTD..... Respondent Through Mr.Akhil Sachar, Ms.Sunanda, Advs. versus Through Ms.Kaadambari and Ms.Mansi Sinha, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) This petition is filed under section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1. 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent company. The case of the petitioner is that on 13.11.2009 the respondent engaged the petitioner to perform certain management services in respect of the Gold Souk Mall in Kochi owned by the petitioner. On 21.12.2010 the petitioners engagement was duly extended under the cost-sheet duly executed by the parties. It is stated that the petitioner have provided services under the Agreement and raised invoices every month as per the terms agreed by the parties from time to time. It is pleaded that under the invoices so ra...
State vs.ajay
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.L.P. 305/2019 #4 STATE AJAY ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP with SI Ranbir Singh, PS Nangloi versus Through None ..... Respondent Date of Decision:06. h May, 2019 $~ * + % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) CRL. M.A. 9649/2019 JUDGMENT Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay in filing the criminal leave petition is condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. CRL. M.A. 9650/2019 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CRL.L.P. 305/2019 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 378(3) Cr. P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 26th November, 2018 passed Page 1 of 6 CRL. L.P. 305/2019 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-06, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in FIR No.40/2013 registered with Police Station Nagloi under Sections 342/377/511 IPC & SectionPOSCO Act.2. The allegation against the accused is that ...
Bennett, Colemon & Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs.nanda Ravi & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2019
$~ * % + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 1029/2018 Date of Decision:06. h May, 2019 BENNETT, COLEMON & CO. LTD. & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Mamta R. Jha, Mr.Vipul K. Tiwari, Ms.Shipra Philips, Advocates versus NANDA RAVI & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT Plaintiff No.1 is the proprietor of the trademark E-TIMES. Plaintiff No.1 adopted the aforesaid trademark on 01st April, 1994 in respect of one of its supplements to the national newspaper - The Times of India. Plaintiff No.1 registered the trademark E-TIMES in 1994 and 1995. However, the registration was granted to plaintiff No.1 subject to the disclaimer that registration shall have no exclusive right to use of the words E and TIMES separately. Plaintiff No.1 obtained the registration of its newspaper with the trademark E-TIMES. The particulars of the registration are given in para 7 and 21 of the plaint. The plaintiffs launched an internet edition of E-TIMES ...
Lifestyle Equities c.v. & Ors. Vs.royal County of Berkshire Polo Club ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2019
$~A- * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 1031/2018 Pronounced on:06. 05.2019 LIFESTYLE EQUITIES C.V. & ORS. ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr.J.Sai Deepak, Ms.Sangeeta Goel, Mr.Mohit Goel, Mr.Sidhant Goel, Mr.Aditya Goel, Mr.Ashutosh Nagar and Mr.Deepankar Mishra, Advs. versus ROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE POLO CLUB LTD. & ORS. ..... Defendants Through Mr.Sudhir Chandra, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Peeyoosh Kalra, Mr.C.A.Brijesh, Ms.Shreyosi Pal and Ms.Navya Chopra, Advs.for D-1. Dr.Sheetal Vohra and Mr.Sridharan Ram Kumar,Advs. for D-2 & D-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.IA No.9511/2018 1. This application is filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendants etc.from selling, advertising, offering for sale, directly or indirectly, reproducing the infringing logo mark or any other mark/trade mark/logo/device which is identical and deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs logo mark. CS (COMM.) 1031/...
Kartik Chopra vs.govt. Of n.c.t. Of Delhi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2019
$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:6. h May, 2019 + W.P.(C) 4861/2019 & CM Nos. 21621/2019, 21622/2019 KARTIK CHOPRA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Subodh K. Pathak, Mr. Shashi Ranjan and Mr. Adil, Advs. versus GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Warisha Farasat, Panel Counsel-GNCTD with Ms. Hafsa Khan, Adv./R-1 Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri, Adv. for R-2 and 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR % 1. JUDGMENT (ORAL) Sympathy must always inform and temper, but can never be allowed to substitute, justice.2. In the present case, the claim of the petitioner is, effectively for the Court to grant relief solely on the ground of sympathy, even though it is an admitted position that grant of such relief would fly in the face of the applicable statutory provisions.3. Consequent to passing his Class XII Examination in 2017, the petitioner who is the sufferer of an ailment known as paroxysmal supra ventricular tachycardia (PSVT), took ad...
- ‹ Prev
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- Next ›
- Last »