Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: delhi Page 6 of about 50,520 results (0.224 seconds)

Sep 16 2016 (HC)

M/s. Khushi Ram Behari Lal Vs. P.V Kanakaraj Trading As Kalpatharu Tra ...

Court : Delhi

IA No. 5529/2014 (under Order VII Rule 11 CPC) 1. This is an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Defendant seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Plaintiff has sought to combine two causes of action i.e., one for passing off of the trademark and the other for infringement of copyright without there being necessary basic averments in the plaint as to how the causes of action for the said reliefs have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 2. It is not in dispute that in the present suit the Plaintiff, having its registered office at 5190, Lahori Gate, Delhi 110006 and its corporate office at 81-B, Central Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi-110062, is seeking two reliefs against the Defendant located in Karnataka. One is for a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from passing off its trademark with device of Taj Mahal used on the rice sold by it as that of the Plaintiffwhich uses a nearly similar mark on the Basmati rice sold by i...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2016 (HC)

M/s. Add Lounge Services Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Delhi

1. The petition impugns the order dated 20th November, 2015 of the Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India (respondent No.1) in appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 4 of the Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2011 against the communication dated 22nd September, 2015 of the respondent no.2 Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), Ministry of Civil Aviation conveying to the petitioner that in view of the adverse report received from the Central Security Agency, security clearance was being denied to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.9544/2015 impugning the said communication dated 22nd September, 2015. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 8th October, 2015 with liberty to the petitioner to prefer the appeal under Rule 4 supra and by fixing a time schedule for disposal of the said appeal and by deferring the consequence of denial of security clearance to the petitioner till the disposal of the said appeal and in the event of...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2016 (HC)

Ashok Kumar Vs. Mona

Court : Delhi

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The appellant sought dissolution of the marriage solemnized on December 06, 1996 between him and the respondent, invoking Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The marriage was consummated and on September 29, 1997 the couple were blessed with a daughter whom they named Akanksha . Currently Akanksha is living with her mother. 3. Apparent from the Sections invoked, the appellant alleged being treated with cruelty by his wife and additionally she being incurably of unsound mind or suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such kind that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to live with his wife. 4. The first instance of mental unsoundness pleaded is that after three weeks of the marriage when the appellant stopped his two wheeler at a petrol pump for fuelling, his wife disappeared when he was in the queue of vehicles and had requested his wife to wait at the corner of the petrol pump. As per the appellant...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2016 (HC)

Rosa Power Supply Co. Ltd Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Delhi

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J Review Petition No.542/2014. 1. The petitioner filed this petition impugning the four orders, all dated 21st March, 2011 of the respondent no.3 Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, intimating to the petitioner the decision taken in the meeting of the Policy Interpretation Committee held on 15th March, 2011 under the Chairmanship of the Director General of Foreign Trade, of denying Deemed Export Benefits (DEB) if the Bill of Entry is in the name of the project authority , as was in the case of the petitioner and accordingly denying the DEB to the petitioner. The petition also impugns the minutes of the said meeting dated 15th March, 2011 and seeks a direction to the respondents to give the DEB in the sum of Rs.72 crores to the petitioner. 2. Arguments on the petition were heard on 21st July, 2014 and judgment reserved. 3. Vide detailed judgment dated 12th August, 2014, the petition was dismissed. 4. The petitioner seeks review, inter alia pleading that Sp...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2016 (HC)

Deeksha Madaan Through Her Father And Natural Guardian, and Another Vs ...

Court : Delhi

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J 1. The Petitioners seek a mandamus thereby directing the Respondent 1 and 3/Directorate of Education to take action against the Respondent no. 2/school for not adhering to the norms and instructions regarding assessment, evaluation and promotion of students from Class I to IX and Class XI issued by the Directorate of Education under Rule 41 of Delhi School Education rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) and for directing the Respondent/School to have the accountancy paper of the Petitioners rechecked and revaluated from some independent agency and a further mandamus directing the Respondent/School to promote the Petitioners to class XII. 2. The petitioners appeared in the final examinations of class XI for the academic session 2015 2016, which were held during 08.03.2016 to 21.03.2016. 3. The result of the final examination was declared on 31.03.2016. The Petitioner/Deeksha Madaan (in WP(C) 6709/2016) in her accountancy paper secured 18.5 % marks in th...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2016 (HC)

National Highways Authority of India Vs. M/s. Gayatri Eci (Jv)

Court : Delhi

Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. National Highway Authority of India (hereafter 'NHAI') has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act'), inter alia, praying that the Award dated 17.12.2015 (hereafter 'the impugned award') passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (hereafter 'the AT') be set aside. 2. The impugned award was rendered in respect of the disputes raised by M/s Gayatri - ECI (JV)( hereafter 'GEJV') - a joint venture between M/s Gayatri Projects Ltd and M/s ECI Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd.- in relation to the Contract Agreement dated 19.08.2005 (hereafter 'the Agreement') entered into between the parties for "the work of widening of existing two lane to four from Km 93.00 to Km 60.00 of Bijni to Assam, West Bengal NH-31C on section of East West Corridor under Phase-II Contract Package"(hereafter 'the Works'). 3. NHAI invited tenders for the Works and GEJV's bid, submitted on 18.04.2005, in response to the invitation to ten...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2016 (HC)

Anil Kumar @ Mithu and Others Vs. State

Court : Delhi

R.K. Gauba, J. 1. The appellants with one another (Satish Chander @ Chandra) were sent up for trial before the court of Sessions on the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted on 13.11.1990 upon conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) No.222/1990 of police Station Dabri (the police station) for offences punishable under Sections 302/324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Upon consideration of the evidence gathered during investigation by the police, as set out in the said police report (charge sheet), the learned additional sessions judge in seisin of the sessions case (No.30/1992) framed charge against all the four said persons for offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Midway the trial, the fourth accused (Satish Chander @ Chandra) jumped bail and inspite of the issuance of duress process against him, his presence could not be secured. He was declared a proclaimed offen...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2016 (HC)

Ravinder Vs. State

Court : Delhi

Pratibha Rani, J. 1. On being convicted by the learned Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 356/379 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years for the offence punishable under Section 356 IPC and RI for three years for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and appeal also being dismissed by learned ASJ vide impugned order dated November 29, 2014, the revisionist herein has invoked the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 397 CrPC r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. 2. The case FIR No. 182/2012 was registered at PS Saket on the basis of statement made by Smt.Reeta the complainant against the petitioner/convict Ravinder for commission of offence punishable under Section 356/379/411 IPC. On the date of occurrence i.e. June 08, 2012 the complainant along with her brothers and family was going to Itawa in a car. Her sister-in-law (bhabhi) was also in the same car with her child and when they reached at the traffic signal at Sector-3, Pushp Vihar, MB Road near Khanpu...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2016 (HC)

Ajay Gupta Vs. State Thr. C.B.I

Court : Delhi

Vipin Sanghi, J. Crl.M.A. No. 13414/2016 1. Issue notice. Ms. Behura, SPP for CBI, accepts notice. 2. I have heard the submission of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for CBI at some length and proceed to dispose of this application. 3. The appellant has preferred this application under Sections 243/311 Cr.P.C. to seek recall of witnesses PW2-Raj Kumar, PW3-Satpal, and PW5- Inspector CBI R.V.S.Lohmor. The background in which the recall of the said witness has been sought may first be noted. 4. The allegation against the appellant was that he demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant PW3-Satpal. A trap had been laid for that purpose by the CBI. PW2 Raj Kumar was the shadow witness and PW5-Inspector RVS Lohmor was the Trap Laying Officer (TLO). As per the case of the prosecution, the appellants/accused had accepted Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant Satpal (PW3) from his right hand and put the amount in his pant pocket. However, when an alarm was raised, h...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2016 (HC)

Indusind Bank Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.

Court : Delhi

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i) impugns the orders dated 4th July, 2013, 31st December, 2013 and 21st April, 2014 of the respondent Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (ECGC) rejecting the claim of the petitioner in respect of Packing Credit Export Credit Guarantee (PCECG) No.0500100361; and, (ii) seeks mandamus to the respondent ECGC to make payment to the petitioner in respect of the claim dated 4th December, 2012 in respect of the said PCECG. 2. The petition came up before this Court first on 3rd September, 2014 when notice thereof was issued. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent ECGC to which rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. The counsels for the parties were heard on 17th May, 2016 and judgment reserved. 3. It is the case of the petitioner i) that the petitioner is a scheduled bank; ii) that the respondent ECGC is a public corporation owned by the Government of India and a State within the meaning of Article ...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //