Court : Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the digest? Yes 1. The Plaintiff, which is the manufacturer of an Ayurvedic medicine "Liv.52", seeks a permanent injunction restraining infringement of its said trademark by the Defendant which is manufacturing a Homeopathic drug "LIV-T".2. The case has been entirely presented and argued as a suit for infringement. The incidental reliefs are for delivery up of all the infringing goods and rendition of accounts by the Plaintiff. Pleadings3. The Plaintiff is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing Ayurvedic medicinal preparations and formulations since 1930. It claims to have gained tremendous reputation in the field of medicine and amongst consumers through large-scale advertising, extensive sales and innovative promotional schemes. Liv.52 is stated to be among several well-known ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) Appeal No. 172 of 2013 (SZ) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein against the order of the 1st respondent, Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short MoEF) dated 18.11.2013, granting Environmental Clearance (for short EC) to the 4th respondent, M/s. KGS Aranmula Air Port Ltd., to set up an airport at Mallappuzhasserry, Aranmula and Kidangannur villages in Kozencherry taluk of Pathanamthitta District, Kerala. A writ petition has also been filed in W.P. (C). No. 6004 of 2012 challenging the notification issued by the 2nd respondent, the State of Kerala declaring the area as an industrial area and the said writ petition is still pending before the Honble High Court of Kerala. The brief facts of the appeal filed herein are stated as follows: 2. The proposed airport is being set up by the 4th respondent on the banks of the holy river Pampa, in an ecologically sensitive and environmentally diverse and rich area. Aranmula is a declared he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The petitioner has challenged vires of Rule 6 (j) (v) of Delhi Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1959 (Rules, for short) as being violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and also on the ground that it suffers from the vice of excessive delegation; is beyond the scope, sphere and does not conform to the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (Act, for short).2. The petitioner had entered into two separate agreements to sell for purchase of two industrial plots each measuring 6 Biswas (about 300 square yards) in Khasra No.81/154 with respondent Nos.3 and 4 and in Khasra No. 81/155 with respondent Nos.5 and 6 situated in village Bakauli, Delhi-36.The said respondents, it is alleged, did not abide by and refused to comply with the contractual terms and, therefore, the petitioner has filed two civil suits for specific performance. During the pendency of the civil suits, the said respondents took the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment No2. To be referred to Reporters or not No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest YesRAJIV SHAKDHER, J1. I propose to dispose of the captioned suits by a common judgment for the reason that not only are all parties in the captioned suits [except the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA)] members of one family but also that the court, by order dated 05.09.1990 passed in FAO (OS) 280/1989, directed consolidation of the said suits, and the evidence by observing that evidence will be led in suit No. 2996/1988. In addition to this, property being: 17, Ashok Vihar Community Centre, Delhi 110 052 (hereinafter referred to as the Ashok Vihar Property), over which the core dispute centres, is common to the captioned suits. It is perhaps with this background that the court, by order dated 02.07.1996, passed in suit no. 2996/1988 framed common issues.2. The first two suits, that is, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002IVAD(Delhi)697; 2002(3)RAJ139
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Petitioner - Gas Authority of India Ltd. (in short 'GAIL') has through this application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenged the award dated February 16, 2001 in respect of almost every claim and counter-claim awarded by the Arbitrator.2. The award has been assailed mainly on the premise of Section 34 of the Act i.e. the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of submissions made to the Arbitrator and also that it is in conflict with public policy.3. Relevant facts need to be recapitulated in brief.The petitioner GAIL floated a tender for mechanical works for a LPG recovery project at Lakwa (Assam). In terms of the notice inviting tender, every bidder was entitled to make bid in accordance with the tender document. It was open to a bidder to seek labour escalation and extended stay compensation. The claimant/respondent initially in the tender sub sought ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi598
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) Willcox Buckwell India Ltd., a public limited company (hereinafter referred to as the Transferor Company), incorporated under the Companies Act, has prayed for sanctioning of the Scheme of Amalgamation, which has been duly resolved by it with the Larsen & Toubro Limited, another public limited company (hereinafter referred to as the Transferee Company), on the terms and conditions mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Petition (C.P. 29/71). The same is opposed by the Central Government to which notice went under Section 391 of the Companies Act; the labour union of the. Transferor Company has not opposed the amalgamation as such but only a certain amendment sought for in Company Application No. 177 of 197.1. (2) The transferee Company has an Authorised Capital of Rs. 5,00,00,000 divided into 20,000, 5% Free of Tax Preference Shares of Rs. 100.00 each and 48,00,000 Equity Shares of Rs. 10.00 each. The Issued, Subscribed and Paid up capital of the Trans- feree Company is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1994)221CTR(Del)431; ILR1998Delhi247; [1995]211ITR861(Delhi)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner seeks the quashing of two Circulars Nos. 666 (see [1993] 204 ITR 40) and 681 (see [1994] 206 ITR 299 dated October 8, 1993, and March 8, 1994, respectively, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('C. B. D. T.' or 'the Board' for short). The other reliefs are consequential to this main relief. The petitioner is a finance company engaged in the business of leasing, hire purchase of articles such as vehicles, plant and machinery, etc. For the purpose of financing its business, the petitioner gets fixed deposits from the public. These fixed deposits are secured through various brokers who are paid brokerage at particular rates depending upon the scheme and duration of the deposits. The impugned circulars purport to explain the scope of section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and direct the authorities under the Act to give effect to the provisions of section 194C as against the commission agents, brokers, lawyers, chartered accountants and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may Yes be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest?1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.92,20,562/-. The defendant-company, which was awarded the work for Biological Oxidation Plant for Coal Chemical Effluents at Rourkela Steel Plant (hereinafter referred to as "RSP), assigned the civil work for the aforesaid plant to the plaintiff for a lump sum amount of Rs.2,87,30,000/- vide Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as LOI) dated 15th October, 1992. The scope of work as also the commercial terms for its execution were annexed to the LOI. It is alleged that in a meeting held in the last week of February, 1993, among the plaintiff, defendant and the officials of RSP, some major changes were made in the nature of civil work which was assigned to the plaintiff and those changes involved extra work and extra price implications. Some other extra works were later e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 156(2009)DLT133
S. Muralidhar, J.Introduction1. The subject matter of all these petitions is land to an extent of over 40 bighas in Village Kapashera, New Delhi belonging to the Deputy Commissioner (South-West) ('DC'), Government of National Territory of Delhi ('GNCTD'). The DC is the petitioner in the first mentioned writ petition W.P. (C) No. 7687 of 2004 Accordingly, all these petitions, including the two contempt petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.Relevant Facts2. On 17th April 1986 a notification was issued under Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 ('Holdings Act') by the competent authority commencing the process of consolidation of land in the Village Kapashera in New Delhi. Pursuant to the said notification dated 17th April 1986 the Consolidation Officer ('CO') published a draft scheme under Section 19 of the Holdings Act on 19th December 1986. After considering the objections the scheme was confirmed by the Sett...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1991]72CompCas5(Delhi)
ORDERS.N. Sapra, J. 1. By the present application filed under sections 456 and 457 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), read with rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, the applicant, namely, Aryavarta plywood Limited (in liquidation), through the official liquidator, has sought the following reliefs: '(a) Issue ad interim ex parte stay injunction restraining the respondents from disposing of any goods of the company and/or land, building, plant and machinery and other goods housed at the factory situated at Biwandi, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan. (b) To confirm the stay ex parte on hearing motion. (c) To order the respondents to hand over the factory consisting of land, building, plant and machinery, etc., etc., to the official liquidator of the company as those assets/properties are in the deemed custody of the Hon'ble High Court. (d) To order the sale of those assets only under the supervision, guidance and orders of this Hon'ble High Court through it offici...
Tag this Judgment!