Court : Delhi
1. Mr. Rajan Janardhan Mohandas Pillai (hereafter „Rajan Pillai), a businessman of Singapore, died in the Deen Dayal Upadhayay Hospital („DDU Hospital), New Delhi on 7th July 1995 while he was in judicial custody, lodged in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. In order to ascertain the relevant facts and circumstances leading to the death of Rajan Pillai, the Lieutenant Governor („LG) of the National Capital Territory of Delhi appointed a Commission of Inquiry consisting of Justice Leila Seth, a former Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court by a notification dated 27th July 1995 under Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. The report of the Leila Seth Commission of Inquiry („LSCI) dated 25th February 1997, inter alia, dealt with the question whether in the death of Rajan Pillai, there was negligence on the part of any authority. The findings in this regard by the LSCI have been made the subject matter of this writ petition filed on 20th April 199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. I am in complete agreement with it, and for the reasons she gives would allow the appeal and make the order which she proposes. LORD STEYN My Lords, 2. I have read the opinion of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. I agree with it. I would also make the order which she proposes. LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS My Lords, 3. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. For the reasons which she gives I also would allow the appeal and make the order which she proposes. BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND My Lords, 4. The issue in this case is whether a patient detained for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 can be treated against his will for any mental disorder from which he is suffering or only for the particular form of mental disorder from which he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR2003J& K17,2003(1)JKJ691
V.K. Jhanji, J. 1. Alt the Letters Patent Appeals are by the unsuccessful plaintiffs. These are being disposed of by common judgment as the same involve common questions of law and facts. For facility of reference, facts are taken from appeal titled Prem Nath v. Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board (LPA (C) No. 8/2002).2. In the suit plaintiff alleged that he is a tenant of shop No. 3 at Mata Ka Bagh and a store room No. 14, appurtenant thereto located in Dhar Bhawan Darbar Mata Vaishno Devi, Trikuta Hills, Katra. He stated that defendants have no right to evict him forcibly from the demised premises otherwise than in due course of law. He thus sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly evicting him from the demised premises, Otherwise than in due course of law. Along with the suit he filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure, supported by an affidavit for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from evicting ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2009(40)PTC593(Del)
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. Plaintiffs filed this suit for permanent injunction against defendants since defendants had brought out a product in the market as MEDIFLON SAFETY. It is alleged that this product of the defendants infringes the plaintiffs' Patent No. 210062. The claim of plaintiffs patent No. 210062, as given in the plaint and in the documents filed mainly concerns claim No. 21 of the patent application filed by plaintiffs on 18th August 1998 and granted on 17th September 2007. It is described as under:Claim 21: An IV catheter assembly comprising:a needle having a needle shaft and a needle tip, the needle shaft comprising a portion of increased diameter proximal from the needle tip;. a housing having a cavity formed therein;. a needle guard disposed within the cavity, the needle guard comprising a proximal wall having first and second end portions and an opening therein, through which the needle shaft extends, and a resilient arm extending distally from the first end of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 147(2008)DLT670; 2008(101)DRJ126
Gita Mittal, J.1. These two writ petitions raise similar questions of law and fact and consequently are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The writ petitions were filed against the New Delhi Municipal Council created under the provisions of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 and performing functions there under.3. It is necessary to consider certain essential facts leading up to the filing of the writ petitions which are noticed hereafter. So far as the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7728/2007 is concerned, on or about 20th February, 1986 the NDMC had allotted a kiosk to the petitioner No. 1 - South Delhi Medicos in the year 1987. Allotment of this kiosk was transferred to the sole name of the petitioner No. 2 - Ms. Shashi Bala Gupta, by a letter of allotment bearing No. D/212/Estate dated 31st January, 2006 on terms and conditions set out in the license deed executed between the parties on 20th February, 1986. It is an admitted position that the license granted to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:10. 01.2019 % W.P.(C) 4573/2012 CARLOS ALBERTO PEREZ LAFUENTE ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashutosh Kumar and Mr.Vinod Chauhan, Advocates. versus UOI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Mr.Srivats Kaushal and Mr. Aditya Madaan, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Anil Dutt and Ms. Gunjan Hans, Advocates for intervener. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA VIPIN SANGHI, J.(ORAL) CM APPL. 13069/2018 (under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC) 1. By this application, applicant seeks to intervene in the matter. Since we have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant on merits, this application has become infructuous. The same is accordingly disposed of. W.P.(C) 4573/2012 & CM APPL. 9501/2012 (for stay) 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the W.P.(C) 4573/2012 Page 1 of 39 order dated 30.01.2012 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents &...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Philadelphia & Trenton R. Co. v. Stimpson - 39 U.S. 448 (1840) U.S. Supreme Court Philadelphia & Trenton R. Co. v. Stimpson, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 448 448 (1840) Philadelphia & Trenton Railroad Company v. Stimpson 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 448 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus Action for the violation of a patent right, granted to the patentee for "a new and useful improvement in turning short curves on railroads." On 26 September, 1835, a second patent was granted, the original patent, granted in 1831, having been surrendered and cancelled on account of a defective specification, the second patent being for fourteen years from the date of the original patent. The second patent was in the precise form of the original, except the recital of the fact that the former patent was cancelled "on account of a defective specification" and the statement of the time the second patent was to begin to run. It was objected that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1994Bom80; 1994(3)BomCR139; (1993)95BOMLR302
1. This is an appeal preferred by original Respondents to challenge Order dated January 27th 1993 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No. 45 of 1993. By the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge made the petition absolute and pending arbitration, restrained the Appellants herein from encashing or receiving any amount under the Bank Guarantees mentioned in Exhibit 'F' thereto. The facts which gave rise to the filing of the said Petition are as follows :--In or about the year 1987, the Appellants had floated a tender notice inviting tenders in respect of construction of an underground tunnel which was part of the Bombay III Water Supply Project. Along with their letter dated 16th May J9S8, the Respondents had submitted their tender for construction of underground tunnel between Dr. E. Moses Road and Ruparel College, Bombay, a part of the said project which was accepted by the Appellants and a contract bearing No. 2769-IN/1750-IN/W/20 (for short 'the said Contrac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Madan B. Lokur, A.C.J.1. The question for our consideration is rather narrow: Is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent (as applicable to the Delhi High Court) maintainable against an order enforcing a foreign award (within the meaning of Sections 44 and 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Article II of the New York Convention)? The question is required to be answered in the context of Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and, in our opinion, the answer is in the negative. For this conclusion, we rely upon a four-Judge decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co. : AIR 1962 SC 256 and a Constitution Bench decision in P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd. : (2004) 11 SCC 672.2. The broad facts of the case are that two 'foreign awards' were rendered in favour of the Respondent on 30 August, 1996 and 16th October, 1996. The Respondent moved execution petitions under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:01. 12.2016 Pronounced on:08. 03.2017 + W.P.(C) 7147/2012 VENU CHARITABLE SOCIETY AND ANR. ........ Petitioners Through: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha and Sh. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates. Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Sh. P. Roychoudhuri with Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The petitioner is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and formed with the objective of rendering comprehensive eye care services, inclusive of all forms of ophthalmic services. To further its objects, it established the Venu Eye Institute and Research Centre in Delhi, with five satellite hospitals and seven vision centers in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Rajasthan. Its claim is that its objects, for assessment years 2005-2006to 2009-2010 were charitable in terms of Section...
Tag this Judgment!