Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. 147/2011 % Judgment dated 27.02.2013 ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PRIVATE LTD ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Vijay Srivastava, Adv. versus HICARE INDIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Arun Kathpalia, Mr.Santosh Kumar, Mr.Shoeb Alam and Mr.Vaibhav Choudhary, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI 1 Present objection petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for setting aside the Award dated 10.12.2010 passed by a former Judge of this Court. The impugned award was rendered by the learned Arbitrator on a claim filed by the respondent/claimant against the petitioner company for alleged breach of Agreement to Lease dated 02.08.2007.2. The facts, necessary to be noticed for disposal of the present petition, are that on 02.08.2007 an Agreement to Lease was executed between one Uppal Housing Limited and the petitioner company with respe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)110TTJ(Delhi)607
1. These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of learned CIT(A), Dehradun, dt. 29th Sept., 2005 for asst. yrs.1999-2000, 2002-03 and 2001-02.The assessee has also filed cross-objection in the asst. yr. 1999-2000. Following grounds of appeal have been taken by the Revenue: (1) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deductions under Section 80-O of the IT Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 51,25,370 to the assessee company without appreciating the fact that the patents were in the name of Shri Rakesh Goel and not in the name of the company i.e. M/s S.K. Dynamics (P) Ltd. (2) The, order of learned CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO be restored. (1) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deductions under Section 80-O of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 52,85,620 to the assessee company without appreciating the fact that the patents were in the name of Shri Rakesh Goel and not in the name of the company i.e. M/s ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE H IGH CO URT OF DE L HI AT NEW DE LHI % Judgment pronounced on:20. h April, 2017 + W.P.(C) 7850/2014 M/S. IRITECH INC versus THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS For the... Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Bansal with Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocates. For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Mr. Shivi Sanyam, Advocate. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGEMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J1 The... Petitioner by the present petition seeks quashing of the deemed to be withdrawn status of the application No.5272/DELNP/2008 under section 11B of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and seeks restoration of the said application and for proceeding further with the same. The... Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to correct the clerical/typographical error in the number of the Patent application in Form No.18 and other documents to read as 5272/DELNP/2008.2. The petitioner o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1715/2012 Date of Decision:20th November, 2013 % VIJAY KUMAR Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.S.B. Dandapani, Adv. versus STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Dayan Krishnan and Ms.Manvi Priya, Advs. for the State. SI Ashish S. Dalal, P.S. Kapashera. G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties the present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. The necessary facts to be noticed and as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner stands convicted by a judgment and order on sentence dated 18.8.2003. The petitioner is serving the sentence awarded and has served more than 11 years out of total sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner has raised a plea of being a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence i.e. 6.10.2001. According to the petitioner, on the date of incident he was 16 year old. In support of his plea of juvenility the petitioner has filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : LC2007(2)396; 2007(35)PTC177(Del)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA. Nos. 651/2007, 1366/2007 & 2611/20071. 'Jurisdiction' as Oliver Wendall Holmes said, 'whatever else or more it may mean, is jurisdictio, in its popular sense of authority to apply the law to the acts of men'. Ordinarily jurisdiction is exercised over defendants residing or carrying on business or personally working for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. With the growth of e-commerce and commercial activity over the world wide web, it has become possible for business to be conducted across the globe without actual presence in every place. The present case, inter alia, involves the question of jurisdiction in such a situation.2. The plaintiff company runs a Hindi news channel 'INDIA TV' which was launched in March 2004. It is stated that the channel is one of the leading Hindi news channels in India having popular programs such as 'Breaking News' and other programs such as India Beats, Jago India, Aap ki Adalat etc. 3. The plaintiff claims to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (OS) 2060/2013 Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on:24. h December, 2016 1st December, 2016 M/s AZ Tech (India) & Anr. ..... Plaintiffs Through : Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sagar Chandra, Mr. Ankit Rastogi and Ms. Ishani Chandra, Advocates. versus M/s Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. & Anr. ..... Defendants Through : Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Aditya Gupta and Mr. Utkarsh Srivastava, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.I.A. No.17138/2013 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 &2) 1. This is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiffs seeking an ad interim injunction against the defendants from using the trademark AQUA. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction, delivery up, production of accounts, damages etc.2. The trademark involved in the present suit is the word mark Aqua pertaining to mobile phones (her...
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
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 11th, 2018 Pronounced on:22. d January, 2018 + W.P (C) No.5349/2004 BATRA HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION ...Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Ms. Urvi Mohan and Mr. Rhishabh Jetley, Advs. Versus BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Manish Sharma with Mr. Ninad Dogra, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT % 1. The Batra Hospital Employees Union claims, in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to be aggrieved by an Award, dated 03rd November 2003, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Karkardooma (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), which holds that the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 do not apply to the Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre.2. The Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-Hospital) was, admittedly, managed and run by the Ch. Aishi Ram Batra Charitable Trust (he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1715/2012 Date of Decision:20th November, 2013 % VIJAY KUMAR Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.S.B. Dandapani, Adv. versus STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Dayan Krishnan and Ms.Manvi Priya, Advs. for the State. SI Ashish S. Dalal, P.S. Kapashera. G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties the present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. The necessary facts to be noticed and as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner stands convicted by a judgment and order on sentence dated 18.8.2003. The petitioner is serving the sentence awarded and has served more than 11 years out of total sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner has raised a plea of being a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence i.e. 6.10.2001. According to the petitioner, on the date of incident he was 16 year old. In support of his plea of juvenility the petitioner has filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1715/2012 Date of Decision:20th November, 2013 % VIJAY KUMAR Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.S.B. Dandapani, Adv. versus STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Dayan Krishnan and Ms.Manvi Priya, Advs. for the State. SI Ashish S. Dalal, P.S. Kapashera. G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties the present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. The necessary facts to be noticed and as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner stands convicted by a judgment and order on sentence dated 18.8.2003. The petitioner is serving the sentence awarded and has served more than 11 years out of total sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner has raised a plea of being a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence i.e. 6.10.2001. According to the petitioner, on the date of incident he was 16 year old. In support of his plea of juvenility the petitioner has filed ...
Tag this Judgment!