Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi160
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This second Appeal under section 39 of She Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter called 'the Act', rates' some interesting question as to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 85 of the Evidence Act and in particular the question whether the presumption provided under the said Section could be available where the document in question had been attested by aforeign authority and as to the interpretation of the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, hereinafter called 'the Enemy Act', but, unfortunately for the appellant, must be dismissed on the ground that it is barred by time. It has been filed in the following circumstances.(2) On October 3, 1960. Smt. Zubeda Begum. Smt. Sugra Begum. Smt. Zohra Begum, Smt. Nasira Begum for self and on behalf of her minor sons Abid Ali, Wahid Ali and Liak All and her daughter Suraiya Begum filed an application for the eviction of respondent from property bearing No. 3705-6, Ward Vii, Shah Ganj. Delhi under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:8. h March, 2017. W.P.(C) 1971/2014 BAYER CORPORATION ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney and Mr. Arun Kumar Jana, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. T.P. Singh, Adv. for R-1 & 6. Mr. Prashant Tyati and Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Advs. for R-7. Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Rajeshwari, Ms. Aparna Gaur, Mr. Tahir A.J.and Mr. Gajendra, Advs. for R-5. AND CS(COMM) No.1592/2016 BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH & ANR ....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Archana Shanker, Mr. Aditya Gupta and Mr. Utkarsh Srivastava, Advs. Versus ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ..... Defendant W.P.(C) No.1971/2014 & CS(COMM) No.1592/2016 Page 1 of 40 Through: Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Saya Chaudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan, Mr. Rohin Koolwal, Ms. Sutapa Jana and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. CORAM: ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:8. h March, 2017. W.P.(C) 1971/2014 BAYER CORPORATION ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney and Mr. Arun Kumar Jana, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. T.P. Singh, Adv. for R-1 & 6. Mr. Prashant Tyati and Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Advs. for R-7. Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Rajeshwari, Ms. Aparna Gaur, Mr. Tahir A.J.and Mr. Gajendra, Advs. for R-5. AND CS(COMM) No.1592/2016 BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH & ANR ....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Archana Shanker, Mr. Aditya Gupta and Mr. Utkarsh Srivastava, Advs. Versus ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ..... Defendant W.P.(C) No.1971/2014 & CS(COMM) No.1592/2016 Page 1 of 40 Through: Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Saya Chaudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan, Mr. Rohin Koolwal, Ms. Sutapa Jana and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. CORAM: ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:12. 10.2018 Pronounced on:22. 04.2019 LPA No.359/2017, CM Nos.17922/2017, 20160/2017, 33383- 84/2017, 47167/2017 & 660/2018 BAYER CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney and Mr. Arun Kumar Jana, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. T.P. Singh and Mr. Shashwat Jain, Advs. for R-1 & 6. Ms. Rajeshwari, Adv. for R-2 & 5. Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advocates for Interveners. RFA(OS)(COMM) 6/2017, CM Nos.17508/2017 & 32128- 29/2017 BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Nishchal Anand and Mr. Sanchith Shivakumar, Advs. versus ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. FAO (OS) (COMM) 169/20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)65ITD125(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against an order of the CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, pertaining to asst. yr. 1992-93.2. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is against refusal of exemption under s. 10(22A) of the IT Act, 1961. Alternatively, it was also mentioned that denying of the benefit of exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act, 1961, is unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. While refusing the exemption as such, the CIT(A) has acted on the relevant considerations demonstrated in the ground Nos. 4 to 8 of the grounds of appeal ignoring the fact that in the past the trust had been allowed exemption under s. 10(22A). The last plea of the assessee was that the CIT(A) has also erred in not allowing depreciation under s. 35(1)(iv) of the IT Act on the ground that the assessee-trust had been allowed exemption under ss. 11 and 12 of the Act, which is factually incorrect and contrary to the material available on record.3. The assessee is a charitable trust duly registered under th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1998)61TTJ(Del)29
ORDERJ. P. BENGRA, J.M. :This is an appeal by the assessed against an order of the CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, pertaining to asst. yr. 1992-93.2. The main grievance of the assessed in this appeal is against refusal of exemption under s. 10(22A) of the IT Act, 1961. Alternatively, it was also mentioned that denying of the benefit of exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act, 1961, is unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. While refusing the exemption as such, the CIT(A) has acted on the relevant considerations demonstrated in the ground Nos. 4 to 8 of the grounds of appeal ignoring the fact that in the past the trust had been allowed exemption under s. 10(22A). The last plea of the assessed was that the CIT(A) has also erred in not allowing depreciation under s. 35(1)(iv) of the IT Act on the ground that the assesee-trust had been allowed exemption under ss. 11 and 12 of the Act, which is factually incorrect and contrary to the material available on record.3. The assessed is a charitable trust duly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. (COMM) 73/2018 & IA72132018 GAIL GAS LTD. Reserved on:24. 09.2019 Date of Decision :27. 11.2019 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Manmeet Arora, Ms.Chand Chopra, Kaur, Ms.Anupama Dhruve, Advs. Ms.Pavitra versus PALAK CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ankit Gupta, Mr.Abhimanyu, Advs. 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 30.09.2017 passed by the Sole Arbitrator adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Contract/Letter of Award dated 01.07.2010 by which the petitioner had awarded the work for MDPE Pipeline Laying and Associated Works in City Zone Distribution (CGD) project of the petitioner in Meerut Region-2 to the respondent.2. Before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. (COMM) 228/2017 & I.A.No.10190/2018 Reserved on:12. 04.2019 Date of Decision :30. 07.2019 ........ Petitioner Through: Ms.Ramni Taneja, Adv. MECAMIDI S.A FLOVEL MG HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.H.L.Tiku, Sr.Adv. Ms.Yashmeet Kaur, Adv. with 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 Arbitral Award dated 22nd December 2016 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Award).2. The Impugned Award, holding the petitioner liable for breach of the Joint Venture Shareholders Agreement executed between the parties as well as the Articles of Association of the respondent No.2 Company, has awarded damages of Rs.1,50,00,000/- to the respondents alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. The Award further dismissed the counter claims filed by the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:08. h July, 2019 + W.P.(C) 5571/2019 & C.M. Appln. 24540/2019 & 26833/2019 1. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED Through: Ms.Rajeshwari H., Advocate ........ Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Gaurang Kanth, CGSC with Mr.Santosh Kr. Pandey, GP with Mr.N.K. Ramesh, Deputy Registrar, IPAB and Mr.S.S. Singh, Deputy Controller, Patents for R-1 & R-2 Mr. J.P. Sengh, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14th March, 2019 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs whereby the Controller dismissed the pre-grant opposition filed by the petitioner and granted the patent to respondent No.3 in respect of Methods of Evaluating Peptide Mixtures.2. The Patents Act provides a remedy of an appeal to the petitioner against the impugned order dated 14th March, 2019 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI C.S (OS) No.1361/2002 Date of Decision:06. 12.2013 PAWAN DEEP SINGH BAHL Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. J.Sai Deepak with Mr. Maanav Kumar, Adv. versus PRINCEP SUPPLY AGENCY CF+ ..... Defendant Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit seeking reliefs of permanent injunction, restraining piracy of industrial design, infringement of copyright and passing-off, along with rendition of accounts of profits, delivery-up and damages with respect to Registered Industrial Design No.182353.2. The plaintiff is the sole proprietor of the trading firm, A. Paul Instruments (Delhi). The plaintiffs case is that he, either by himself or through his licensees and sister-concerns, is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of rail thermometers and related equipment. The specific product of the plaintiff, which is the subject-matter of the instant suit is called Plug with Thermostat or Mercury in Glass Thermos...
Tag this Judgment!