Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-26-2019
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h March, 2019 CS(COMM) 10/2019 & IA No.259/2019 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) SURYA FOOD AND AGRO LIMITED .... Plaintiff Through: Mr. N. Mahabir and Mr. P.C. Arya, Advs. OM TRADERS & ANR. Versus ...Defendants Through: Mr. Hemant Sharma, Adv. for D-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The plaintiff has instituted this suit against the two defendants namely (i) Om Traders; and, (ii) Raja Udyog Private Limited (RUPL), for permanent injunction restraining selling, offering for sale any goods, advertising or promoting any product under the packaging, get up, trade dress of the defendants product BUTTER KRUNCH or any packaging, get up, trade dress which is similar to that of plaintiffs product BUTTER DELITE and likely to cause passing off and for ancillary reliefs.2. The suit came up first before this Court on 10th January, 2019, when though not finding any case of passing off to have been made out but observing that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-14-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:23. 01.2019 Date of Decision :14. 03.2019 O.M.P. (COMM) 128/2018 & I.A. No.3857/2018 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Keshav Mohan, Mr.Rishi K.Awasthi and Ms.Ritu Arora, Advs. versus + PUNE SHOLAPUR ROAD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Laik, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA1 This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Arbitral Award dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Concession Agreement dated 30.09.2009 executed between the parties for the work of Design, Engineering, Construction, Development, Finance, Operation and Maintenance of 4 laning of Pune Solapur Section of NH 9 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-13-2019
$~J * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:30. 01.2019 Judgment Pronounced on:13. 03.2019 CS(COMM) 1108/2018 INTERCITY HOTEL GMBH ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Peeyoosh Kalra, Mr.C.A.Brijesh, Mr.Dhruv Grover and Mr.Rohan Seth, Advs. Versus HOTEL INTERCITY DELHI & ORS Through Mr.Anil ..... Defendants Sapra, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Satish Kumar, Mr.Vishal Patel, Mr.Sarthak Katyal and Ms.Akanksha, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.IA No.12193/2018 1. This application is filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendants, their servants, partners etc. from using the mark HOTEL INTERCITY DELHI or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trademark INTERCITYHOTEL either as a trade mark/corporate name/domain name.2. The plaintiff has filed the accompanying suit for permanent injunction against infringement of trade mark, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-11-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 482/2003 IN THE MATTER OF: Reserved on:21. 1.2019 Date of decision:11. 3.2019 HIMMAT SINGH & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Pradeep Chowdhary and Mr. Vikrant Chowdhary, Advocates. versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for State. SI Suresh Kumar, P.S. Inderpuri. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI HIMA KOHLI, J.1. The three appellants, who are related to each other, being brothers, have challenged the judgment dated 4.7.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in case FIR No.33/2002 registered against them at P.S. Inderpuri under Section 3IPC whereunder appellant No.1, Himmat Singh @ Mangal has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and the appellant No.2, Rajesh and appellant No.3, Vinod have been convicted under Section 3IPC. The appellants are also aggrieved by the order on sentence dated 4.7.2003 whereunder they have been sentenced to undergo rigo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-07-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2530 OF2012Birla Institute of Technology .Appellant(s) VERSUS The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. On 07.01.2019, this Court placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association vs. Administrative Officer and Others (2004) 1 SCC755 which was brought to the 1 Courts notice by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court.2. However, after the pronouncement of the order in this appeal, it came to the notice of this Court that consequent upon the decision of this Court rendered in Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association (supra), the Parliament amended the definition of the word employee as defined in Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by Amending Act No.47 of 2009 on 31.12.2009 with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997. This amendment was no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-28-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:04. 12.2018 Date of Decision :28.02.2019 + O.M.P. (COMM) 196/2018 & I.A. Nos.6150/2018, 9997-98/2018 NOBLE CHARTERING INC ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.V.K. Ramabhadran, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Jayesh Ashar, Mr.Bomi Patel, Mr.Dhaval Mehrotra and Mr.Sudhanshu Sikka, Advs. versus STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Santosh Kumar, Mr.Manav Gill and Ms.Bhabna Das, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA1 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Arbitral Award dated 27.12.2017 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in Case No.2 adjudicating the disputes that had arisen between the parties in relation to the Contract of Affreightment dated 27.07.2010 executed between the parties.2. The Sole Arbitrator by way of the Impugned Award, while rejecting the claims filed by the petitioner, has allowed the Counter Claim of the respondent for a sum of USD862500.00 with inte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-28-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. (COMM) 225/2018 & IA71362018 Reserved on:20. 12.2018 Date of decision :28. 02.2019 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Santosh Kumar, Mr.Sarthak Agarwal, Advs. versus NOBLE CHARTERING INC. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.V.K.Ramabhadran, Sr. Adv. with Mr.J.K.Asher, Mr.B.H.Patel, Mr.D.Mehrotra, Mr.Sudhanshu Sikka, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA1 This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the Award dated 27.12.2017 passed by the Sole Arbitrator.2. The parties entered into a Contract of Affreightment (hereinafter referred to as the COA) on 20.08.2008. The period of the contract was three years from September, 2008 to August, 2011. The Cargo quantity was specified as 18,00,000 MT of coking coal (5% more or less at petitioners option), with parcel size of 70,000 MT (5% more ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-28-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Reserved on:6. h February, 2019 Pronounced on:28. h February, 2019 CUSAA202018 CHANDER PRAKASH VERMA ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Ria Chanda & Ms.Ekta Kapoor, Advocates versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) ..... Respondent Senior Through: Mr.Amit Standing with Ms.Seema Dolo, Advocate for respondent. Bansal, Counsel CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN MR.JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN % 1. In this appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereafter referred to as "the Act"]., the appellant challenges an order dated 16.05.2017, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereafter referred to as "the Tribunal"]., whereby the Tribunal affirmed the penalty imposed upon him by the customs authorities in respect of smuggling of 18 kilograms of gold into India.2. At the time of admission of the present appeal, the following question of law was framed by this Court: CUSAA202018 Page...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-28-2019
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:18. h February, 2019 Pronounced on:28. h February, 2019 + LPA102019 & CM Nos. 566/2019 & 649/20 1. THE ASSOCIATED JOURNALS LTD & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. and Mr.Vivek Tankha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Devdatt Kamat, Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, Ms. Priyansha Indra Sharma, Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi, Ms. Madhavi Khanna, Mr. Nikhil Bhalla, Mr.Prashant, Mr. Ashwin G. Raj, Mr. Varun Chopra and Mr. Nishanth Patil, Advs. Versus LAND & DEVELOPMENT OFFICE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG with Mr.Rajesh Gogna, CGSC CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT Rajendra Menon, Chief Justice Seeking exception to a judgment dated 21st December, 2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.12133/2018 by the learned writ Court, this appeal is filed by the petitioner/appellant herein under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Courts Act, 1966.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-26-2019
$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Order:26. 02.2019 + F.A.O. No.75/2019 & C.M. Nos.8780-8781/2019 KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Ms. Rajeshwari H. & Mr. Kumar Chitranshu, Advocates. Versus VIKRAM JEET & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % ORDER2602.2019 F.A.O. No.75/2019 & C.M. No.8780/2019 (for stay) & C.M. No.8781/2019 (for appointment of Local Commissioner) 1. The impugned order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (ADJ) in Civil Suit being TM No.08/2019, dismissing two applications of the appellants/plaintiffs; one under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and another under Order XXVI Rule 9, is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. FAO752019 Page 1 of 14 2. As per the factual matrix, the appellants company has been in the business of manufacturing and selling Mineral RO Water Purifier S...
Tag this Judgment!