Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-16-2011
1. The question in this bunch of Appeals concerns the legal proprietary of judicial directions for the removal of an arbitrator even before the publishing of an Award. Several judgments of our esteemed Single Benches have been cited before us, a perusal of which manifests the existence of a polarity of opinion. On one side of the watershed is the view that assertions as to the de jure or de facto incompetence of the Arbitral Tribunal must immediately be addressed by the Court, and in deserving cases remedied, whilst on the other side is the contrary view that the statutorily provided procedure postulates an immediate remonstration but a deferred assailment of the Award, inter alia on this ground, by way of an invocation of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act for short). 2. At the threshold, an objection has been lodged to the maintainability of the Appeals on the ground that Section 37 of the A&C Act provides for such remedy only against orders (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-29-2011
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the following applications: a) IA No.15781/2008 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC). b) IA No.3085/2009 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. 2. The Plaintiff has filed the instant suit for restraining infringement of copyright, damages etc. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the copyright in the repertoire of songs, cinematograph films, sound recordings etc. The plaintiff claims to have over 20000 Hindi Non film songs and around 50000 songs in regional languages. 3. The plaintiff further states that the business of the plaintiff which is film producing, music distribution etc is largely dependant upon the exploitation of its copyright. The said copyright exploitation enables the plaintiff to sustain its creative activities thereby giving opportunities to many talents including composers, artists, singers, etc. The plaintiff states that the monetary gains arising from copyright exploitation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-28-2011
1. This is the second round of litigation involving the Petitioners challenge to a decision dated 16th March 2001 passed by the Directorate General of Health Services (`DGHS) in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (`MHFW), Government of India, Respondent No. 5 withdrawing the customs duty exemption certificate (`CDEC) issued to the Petitioner for availing the benefit of exemption from payment of customs duty and additional duty of customs for importing/acquiring medical equipments for treatment of patients at the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital („SGRH) in New Delhi. Background facts 2. The Petitioner Sir Ganga Ram Trust Society (GRTS) is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is running the SGRH, a charitable institution, since 1954. According to the Petitioner, it does not have any corpus fund and all the income and profit from the SGRH is invested for the development of the SGRH. Further, the GRTS does not get any grant from any authority. 3. It is stated that o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. In this public interest litigation preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though number of issues have been raised, yet on a considered scrutiny and regard being had to the proponements advanced at the bar, we are disposed to think that three principal issues arise for consideration, namely, whether the doctors, interns and junior residents in AIIMS can go on strike for whatever reason and further coerce the willing doctors not to discharge their duty on any count whatsoever; whether the competent authorities in charge of the said institutions are accountable to take appropriate action against the erring doctors on proper identification or show leniency for such transgression and delinquency; and whether the report submitted by the Committee headed by Professor Sukha Deo Thorat (known ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-08-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes ORDERC.M. APPL No. 1695/2011Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.The application is disposed of.WP (Civil) No. 801/2011 & CM APPL No. 1694/20111. An interesting question of law involving the interpretation of Section 11-B (1) and (4) of the Patents Act, 1970 (Act) and Rule 24 B of the Patents Rules 2003 (Rules) arises in this writ petition.2. With the consent of Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on advance notice for the Respondent, this petition has been heard finally.3. The Petitioner is a Corporation organized under the laws of Japan. It is stated that the Petitioner has the worlds top class technology in the field of medium-high grade steel where high workability, rust prevention performance and weld strength ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-14-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. Regard being had to the similarity of the questions involved in thesethree appeals, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by asingular order.2. In this batch of appeals preferred under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for brevity the Act), the assail is to the composite orderdated 25.8.2009 in ITA Nos.1884/Del/2006, 2724/Del/07 and 2038/Del/08pertaining to the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-03 and 2003-04respectively passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short `thetribunal) by the appellant revenue raising the following substantialquestions of law:"(1) Whether learned ITAT erred in holding that exercise ofRevisionary Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 was invalid?(2) Whether learned ITAT erred in setting aside the order ofthe CIT under Section 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-28-2011
1. This order shall dispose of a batch of three writ petitions bearing W.P.(C) Nos. 5763/2011, 5917/2011 and W.P.(C) No. 4920/2011 .2. By these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner institutes/medical colleges have approached this court to challenge the order of the respondent Medical Council of India/Board of Governors whereby it has rejected the grant of additional intake in the MBBS course in the petitioner institutes/colleges.3. The adumbrated facts of the three petitions are set out as under:W.P.(C) Nos. 5763/20114. The petitioner herein applied initially for intake of 150 students in MBBS course but subsequently requested the respondent to inspect the college for 100 admissions only and thus consequently the respondent granted permission for starting the medical college for 100 students and the subsequent renewals followed. It is only when the petitioner applied for permission of 150 students for the session 2011-2012, that the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-23-2011
1 In this batch of writ petitions preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the constitutional validity of Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1995 (for short „the 1995 Act) and Section 66 as amended by the Finance Act, 2010 (for brevity „the 2010 Act) is called in question. The matters were initially placed before a Division Bench wherein the learned counsel for the parties raised many a submission and regard being had to the nature of the cases, the Division Bench thought it appropriate that the controversy should be dwelled upon by a larger Bench. Thereafter, the matters have been placed before us. 2 For the sake of clarity and convenience, we shall advert to the facts adumbrated in W.P.(C) No.3398/2010 and deal with the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties in all the writ petitions as the issue is common to all. The petitioner, a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956, has taken commercial property / shops on rent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-13-2011
1. A complaint was filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents for offence punishable under Section 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short „the NDPS Act) inter alia praying to take cognizance of the offences, summon the accused, try and punish them in accordance with law. The Special Court constituted under the NDPS Act took cognizance of the offences and summoned the Respondents. Vide order dated 3rd February, 2005 charges were framed against the Respondents for offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. In the meanwhile Rajkumar Arora Respondent No. 1 in the present case filed a bail application before this Court being Bail Application No. 205/2005. Besides the bail application of Rajkumar Arora, number of other applications were considered wherein the allegations against the accused persons were for possession of ampoules containing injectable contents of Buprenorphine. This Court heard all these petitions toge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-14-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. In this public interest litigation, the National Association of the Deaf and another describing themselves as pro bono publico have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction commanding the respondents to grant driving licences to deaf persons and further to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing of any policy decision restraining or creating any kind of restriction on the part of the deaf persons to get the driving licences. 2. The factual matrix, as unfurled in the writ petition, are that the petitioner No.1 is a voluntary non-government organization and the petitioner No.2 is a person whose hearing is impaired. The aim of the petitioner No.1 organization is to promote the rights and equality o...
Tag this Judgment!