Delhi Court November 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 4 of about 1,333 results (0.030 seconds)Arjun Madan and Anr. Vs. State and Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5439/2014 ARJUN MADAN & ANR. Through ..... Petitioners Mr. P. Roy Choudhary, Advocate with Petitioners. versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor. Mr. Prannoy Dey, Advocate with Complainant. Sub Inspector Rajesh Kumar, PS. B.K. Road. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.1162/2012 registered under Section 406, 498-A IPC on 27.12.2012 at police station Barakhamba Road, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.2. Issue notice. Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. Prannoy Dey, Advocate for respondents No.2, enter appearance and accept notice. The complainant is also identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Rajesh Kumar, Barakhamba Road.3. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged at the inst...
Tag this Judgment!Mamta Rani Vs. Sudhir Sharma
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: November 28, 2014 + MAT.APP. 121/2010 MAMTA RANI Through: ..... Appellant Mr. G.C.Shukla, Advocate versus SUDHIR SHARMA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. A.K.Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Vide impugned judgment of 14th September, 2010, marriage of appellant with respondent has been declared to be nullity, as the material fact of mental illness of appellant-wife was concealed from respondenthusband. The factual background of this case already stands noticed in the opening paragraphs of the impugned judgment and needs no reiteration. Suffice it would be to note that the parties were married on 19 th April, 2007 but their marriage could not be consummated on the first night due to abnormal behavior of appellant-wife and within few months it became known that appellant-wife was suffering from mental disorder i.e. bipolar disorder alongwith seizures since the year 1998 and was under constant m...
Tag this Judgment!Wasim Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :28. h November, 2014 % + CRL.A. 740/2013 WASIM Through : ..... Appellant Counsel for the Petitioner. versus STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Neeraj Kumar Singh, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J.(Oral) 1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the Appellant impugning the judgment dated 21.02.2013 and order on sentence dated 22.02.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.47/2012 whereby the Appellant was convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo SI for six months.2. Briefly stating, the case FIR No.42/2012 under Section 363/376 IPC was registered at PS Chandni Mahal on the basis of complaint made by Mohd. Rukhsar. As per the complaint Ex.PW2/A, the Complainant Mohd. Rukhsar went to Police Station on 27.03.2012 and stated before...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Kumar Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors
Court: Delhi
$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5411/2014 DEEPAK KUMAR Through ..... Petitioner MR. Sunil K. Kalra, Advocate with petitioner. versus THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor. Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate with R2to 5. Sub Inspector Jay Deep Malik, P.S. Geeta Colony. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A. No.18445/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off. Crl.M.C. No.5411/2014 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.188/2013, registered under Sections 279/337 IPC on 09.05.2013 at police station Geeta Colony, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.2. Issue notice.3. Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate for respondents 2 to 5, enter appearance and accept notice. Respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
16&18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % Date of Decision:28. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 8270/2014 & CM APPL. 19204-19205/2014 ASHOK KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar and Mr. Udayan Khandelwal, Adv for R-1 Ms. Latika Choudhary for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate W.P.(C) 8282/2014 & CM APPL. 19228-19229/2014 SUNIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Adv. for R-1 Ms. Latika Choudhary for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioners in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assail the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) in their respective Original Applications being O.A. Nos.775/2012 and 773/2012, whereby the Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!Ritwik Raj Saxena Vs. Union Public Service Commission and Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~19 & 23. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % Date of Decision:28. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 8319/2014 & CM APPL. 19276-19280/2014 SATISH KUMAR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Amit S Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Bakshi, Advocate versus UNION PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION & ANR.... Respondent Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Advocate Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Aditi Gupta and Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhary, Adv. for UPSC % W.P.(C) 8373/2014 & CM APPL. 19386-19389/2014 RITWIK RAJ SAXENA Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Debesh Panda, Ms. Amrita Panda and Ms. Shweta Sharma, Advocates versus UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR...... Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC Mr. Naresh Kaushik Ms. Aditi Gupta and Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhary, Adv. for UPSC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. These petitioners claim to be aggrieved by a common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash and Anr Vs. The State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr
Court: Delhi
$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5399/2014 OM PRAKASH & ANR Through ..... Petitioners Mr. Ravinder Kumar and Mr. K. S. Kashyap, Advocates with petitioners. versus THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents Through Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Sub Inspector Saurab Kumar, P.S. CAW Cell, Nanak Pura. Mr. S. C. Singhal, Advocate with Complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A. No.18429/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off. Crl.M.C. No.5399/2014 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.12/2009 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on 17.01.2009 at police station CWC Nanak Pura, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.2. Issue notice.3. Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for ...
Tag this Judgment!Sonu Kumar Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~7, 14 to 17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of hearing and Order:28. 11.2014 7 W.P.(C) 4804/2014 SONU KUMAR Through ..... Petitioner Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tinu Bajwa & Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through 14 ..... Respondents Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Vinod Kr. Tiwari, Advocate W.P.(C) 7228/2013 MOHIT RATHI Through ..... Petitioner Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tinu Bajwa & Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through 15 ..... Respondents Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Ram Gopal Pandey, Advocate W.P.(C) 7235/2013 RAJ KUMAR Through ..... Petitioner Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tinu Bajwa & Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through W.P.(C) Nos. 4804/14, 7228/13, 7235/13, 34/14, 3237/14 ..... Respondents Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. 16 W.P.(C) 34/2014 DEEPAK KUMAR Through ..... Petitioner Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tinu Bajwa & Mr....
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Ram and Ors Vs. State of Nct of Delhi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5421/2014 NATHU RAM & ORS Through ..... Petitioners Mr. Ajit Nair, Advocate with petitioners. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor. Sub Inspector Balmukund. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate with R2and 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A. No.18491/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off. Crl.M.C. No.5421/2014 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.146/2012 registered under Section 308, 323, 34 IPC at police station Rajinder Nagar on 18.09.2012 at the instance of the second respondent Pragi Lal, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the petitioners as well as the complainant and the injured Udal Raikwar.2. Issue notice. Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. Pankaj Shar...
Tag this Judgment!Merck Kgaa and Anr. Vs. Emil Pharmaceutical Inds. Pvt. Ltd
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :13. h NOVEMBER, 2014 DECIDED ON :28. h NOVEMBER, 2014 + CS (OS) 1811/2012 MERCK KGAA AND ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through : Mr.C.M.Lall, Advocate with Mr.Anuj Nair & Mr.Nancy Roy, Advocates. VERSUS EMIL PHARMACEUTICAL INDS. PVT. LTD Through : ..... Defendant None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark and rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up, etc. against the defendant with the following prayers :a. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, by himself, his servants, agents, assigns, etc. from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations under the trade mark COZOLE or any other trade mark identical, deceptively and/or confusingly similar to the trademark COSOME so as to infringe plaintiffs trademark regis...
Tag this Judgment!