Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (7.74 seconds)
Documents citing Dharshan Lal Dhuper vs Smt. Motia Rani And Ors. on 24 March, 2004

M/S Gemco Electrical Industries. Dh/ vs M/S Inder Industries on 24 March, 2007

26. On the contrary the arguments advanced by the counsel for the Decree Holder is duly supported by consistent law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in cases of Mohini Mehra Vs. M/s Mallbu Estate Pvt. Ltd. Reported as 2006 IV AD(Delhi) 570, Gargya Research Instruments Vs. State Bank of India reported as 2006 IV AD(Delhi) 658, New Bank of India Vs. M/s Marvels ( India) & ors reported as 2001 VI AD(Delhi) 356, Kuldip Singh Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce reported as 88(2000) DLT 377, Dharshan Lal Dhuper Vs. Motia Rani & ors reported as 110(2004) DLT 516, Overseas Employment Vs. A.S.Bakshi reported as 1986(1) All India Rent Control Journal 131, Mala Dang Vs. R.K. Cables & ors reported as 33(1987) DLT 11, and Anil Sharma Vs. Wiezmani Consultants & anr. Reported as 115 (2004) DLT 154.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Gurdeep Kaur, Smt. Kanwaljit Kaur ... vs Shri Navrattan Singh And Ors. on 10 March, 2005

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the notice to the registered proprietors of the trade mark before ever any order is being passed on TM 24 is a mandatory one. Failure to carry out mandatory requirement by the respondents No.4 and 5 vitiates the impugned entry. On this short ground, the petition has to be ordered. He also placed his reliance on the two judgments viz., the case of Kohinoor Paints Faridabad (P) Ltd. v. Paramveer Singh and Anr. Reported in 1996 (16) PTC 69 and the case of Darshan Lal Dhooper v. Motia Rani and Ors. reported in 2002(26) PTC 587 (Del). He further contended that the undertaking given before the Criminal Court is due to various reasons, mostly to avoid the criminal prosecution and as such, the same cannot be taken against the petitioners either as estopple or otherwise. The impugned entry is in violation of the principles of natural justice and as such, the same is ab initio void. In such circumstances, as and when the respondents claim the benefit of the impugned entry, it is open to the petitioners to object the same and hence the limitation does not arise.
Intellectual Property Appellate Board Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Texmo Industries And Ors. vs Aqua Pump Industries And Ors. on 25 October, 2004

); Akal Mechanical Works v. Paras Special Machine Co. and Ors., PTC (Suppl) (1) 150; Bawa Jagmohan Singh and Ors. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors., 2002 (24) PTC 417 and Darshan Lal Dhooper v. Motia Rani and Ors., 2002 (25) PTC 587, to support his contention that the order of assignment made by the Registrar of Trade Marks without notice to the applicants amounts to the violation of principles of natural justice and consequently, the rectification has to be made by setting aside the order.
Intellectual Property Appellate Board Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishna Continental Ltd. And Sh. R.D. ... vs Sh. Balkrishan Sharma on 8 August, 2007

In order to embolden his case, counsel for the appellants has cited authorities reported in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji , N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy , State of Bihar and Ors. v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Anr. with State of Bihar and Ors. v. Brij Bihari Prasad Singh , Bharat Singh and Ors. v. Narender Kumar and Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 691, Gobind Parshad Jagdish Parshad v. Hari Shankar and Ors. , Dharshan Lal Dhuper v. Smt. Motia Rani and Ors. , Delhi Development Authority v. Bhasin Associates and Sultan Singh (Since deceased now represented by Mr. Jitender Kumar Jain) v. Mrs. Raj Rani and Anr. .
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 10 - J M Malik - Full Document

Mahesh Chandra vs Durga Kainthola on 29 October, 2014

9. During the course of hearing, the counsel was asked as to whether the appellant had filed any complaint with the Bar Council against the advocate to whom default in not returning the file and in appearance on his behalf in the proceeding of the Domestic Violence Act has been attributed. The counsel for appellant conceded that no complaint has been filed with the disciplinary authority viz. Bar Council. In the given circumstances it is clear that the story of instructions to an advocate and he having made default has been created as a fiction to some how make a case for condonation of delay. [Darshan Lal Dhuper Vs. Motia Rani & ors [110 (2004) DLT 516] and Pradip Kumar Chakravarty Vs. Satish Miglani [164 (2009) DLT 392]
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Solutions Unlimited vs Matrix Cellular (International) ... on 9 April, 2014

21. It was held in the cases of Darshan Lal Dhuper Vs. Motia Rani & ors [110 (2004) DLT 516] and Pradip Kumar Chakravarty Vs. Satish Miglani [164 (2009) DLT 392] that such contentions shifting the blame on to the previous lawyer cannot be accepted or acted upon in absence of any move to proceed before the disciplinary authority in the Bar Council against the concerned advocate.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ruchika Kohli vs Paramjeet Singh on 20 January, 2014

27. As has been held in the case of Darshan Lal Dhuper (supra) and Pradip Kumar Chakravarty (supra), such contentions shifting the blame on to the previous lawyer cannot be accepted or acted upon in absence of any move to proceed before the disciplinary authority in the Bar Council against the concerned advocate. Similar objections on behalf of the decree holder were raised and duly noted by this court at the hearing on the application on 17.10.2013 and 05.12.2013. Despite knowing full well the law on the subject, no complaint has been lodged against the previous counsel even till date.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next