Delhi Court April 2016 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Shabana Ali and Another Vs. Farman Ali @ Shahil
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
Gita Mittal, J. Oral: 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant has assailed the order dated 16th December, 2014, passed by the Family Court in M.L. No. 07/2014. The primary ground of grievance is that the Family Court is not complying with the order/directions made by this court in a previous appeal. 3. The Division Bench of this Court on 21st July, 2015, while deciding the MAT APP. (F.C.) 90/2015 considered it necessary to note the factual matrix of the case in detail. We refrain from repetition. Suffice to say that the respondent herein has filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights on a plea that he was married to the appellant No. 1. By way of his second prayer, the respondent has sought a declaration that the marriage of the appellant No. 1 with the appellant No. 2 be declared null and void for the reason that the appellant No. 1 had a valid and subsisting marriage with him/respondent. The petition of the respondent filed under Section 7 of t...
Satya Pal Gupta and Others Vs. Sudhir Kumar Gupta and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The appellant in RFA(OS) 76/2013 [hereafter referred to as "Satyapal"] is aggrieved by a decree for possession. He is also aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit [CS(OS) 1399/2011] by the same common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 01.07.2013. Satyapal was plaintiff in theat suit (for declaration and consequential relief- hereafter "declaration suit") and the defendant in CS (OS) 1480/2011. The respondent in the RFA(OS) 76/2013 who filed CS(OS) 1480/2011, ("the possession suit), and who is the brother of Satyapal shall hereafter be referred to as "Sudhir". 2. Satyapal had sought the relief of declaration and consequential injunction in respect of property being one-half share of the premises - a 21/2 storeyed property at K-155, Hauz Khas Enclave [hereafter referred to as "the suit property"]. Sudhir, in the possession suit, sought for a decree of possession and mesne profits, in respect of the suit property. The third proceeding, being FAO(OS) 327/201...
Hellenic Electricity Distribution Network Operator S.A. Vs. Bharat Hea ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. We shall be referring to the parties as the plaintiff; defendant No.1; defendant No.2; and defendant No.3 respectively. 2. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. (the first respondent in the appeal) is the plaintiff. Public Power Corporation SA (respondent No.3 in the appeal) is defendant No.1. Hellenic Electricity Distribution (the appellant in the appeal) is defendant No.2. State Bank of India (respondent No.2 in the appeal) is defendant No.3. 3. The plaintiff instituted a suit pleading that defendant No.1 is a company established in Greece and was in the business of power production and power supply. It invited a global tender for supply of five transformers. Plaintiff s bid was accepted and on February 05, 2009 a contract was executed containing, amongst others, terms on which liquidated damages for late supply could be levied. As per the contract, a performance guarantee had to be given to defendant No.1 and therefore, at the asking of the plaintiff the defendant No...
M/s. Alcatel-Lucent France and Others Vs. Assistant Director of Income ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J: 1. This judgment is common to sixteen writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by companies belonging to the Alcatel-Lucent group. Four of the writ petitions are by M/s. Alcatel-Lucent France ( ALF ), five by M/s. Alcatel-Lucent Bell NV ('ALB'), five by M/s. Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise ('ALE') and the remaining two by M/s. Alcatel-Lucent Canada ('ALC'). The challenge in all these writ petitions is to the notices issued by the Income-tax Department (hereafter 'the Revenue') to each of the Petitioners under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') seeking to reopen the assessments for various Assessment Years ('AYs'). The orders rejecting the objections of the Petitioners to such reopening are also under challenge. Consequently, the questions that arise for determination are similar. Facts concerning Alcatel-Lucent France 2. To begin with the Court proposes to discuss in some detail the facts concerning ALF. As already noticed, the fa...
The Bullion and Jewellers Association (Regd.) and Another Vs. Union of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. W.P. (Civil) No. 10538/2015 1. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10538 of 2015 by the Bullion and Jewellers Association (Regd.) [ Association ] challenges the Circular dated 6th October 2015 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs ( CBEC ), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi stating inter alia that the gold jewellery imported by the members of the Petitioner Association from Indonesia do not satisfy the original criteria and should be denied the benefit of preferential custom duty. The impugned Circular directs the Assessing Authority to disregard certificates issued by the statutory authorities in Indonesia and the confirmation given by the government-owned companies in Indonesia. 2. While issuing notice in this writ petition, the Court by its order dated 6th November 2015 directed the Respondents to clear the consignments of gold imported from Indonesia provisionally in accordance with law and, in particular, the Customs...
Saranpal Kaur Anand Vs. Praduman Singh Chandhok and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Saranpal Kaur Anand, an unmarried daughter of late Sardar Harnam Singh Anand and late Smt.Harbans Kaur filed a suit being CS(OS) 873/2012 inter-alia seeking a decree of declaration that suit property bearing No.4-C/7, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi is a joint undivided family property of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 9 being the successors of late Sardar Harnam Singh and late Smt.Harbans Kaur; a decree of declaration declaring the purported sale deed dated August 23, 1969 executed by Smt.Harbans Kaur through her alleged attorney in favour of Ms.Tej Kaur as fictitious, sham, incompetent, bad, illegal, null and void and a decree of permanent injunction besides damages and mesne profits. The plaintiff also prayed for additional relief for further claims under Order II Rule 2 CPC. 2. After filing of the suit in March 2012 plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint being IA No.17994/2012 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking to in...
Roche Products (India) Pvt Ltd. and Others Vs. Drugs Controller Genera ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Manmohan Singh, J. 1. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for injunction against four defendants. By this order, I propose to dispose of the above mentioned pending applications. 2. The plaintiff No. 1, Roche Products (India) Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, as amended (the "Companies Act"), is an affiliate of plaintiff No. 2, and is the importer and marketer of innovator molecule Trastuzumab in India. Trastuzumab is stated to be a biological drug used primarily for the treatment of HER 2 positive breast cancer. In India, Trastuzumab is sold under the brand names HERCEPTIN, HERCLON and BICELTIS. It is stated that Trastuzumab has become the accepted biological treatment for HER 2 positive breast cancer on a worldwide basis and enjoys a global reputation. Plaintiff No. 2, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, a joint stock company incorporated under the laws of Switzerland is an affiliate of plaintiffs No. 1 and 3, and the manufacturer of innovator molecule Tra...
Ranjeet and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Surender Lal Dev (hereinafter referred to as the Deceased ) was last seen alive on June 30, 2013, when after settling his dues he left employment of Dinesh Kumar PW-12. 2. The deceased being missing, and in all probability dead, emerged when accused Mohd.Aslam rang up the police in the morning of November 24, 2013 and informed that a quarrel is taking place at a house situated near Shiv Temple at Mangal Bazar Road, Bhagya Vihar as recorded in DD No.16A, Ex.PW-2/A. 3. On being handed over a copy of DD No.16A, accompanied by Ct.Dharampal PW-12, SI Randhir PW-15 reached the house where a decomposed body, reduced to a skeleton, was recovered from the septic tank within the precincts of the building. 4. Insp. Mahender Singh PW-21 also reached the house and took over further investigation. 5. Needless to state, needle of suspicion pointed towards the five alleged occupants of the house i.e. accused: (i) Mohd.Aslam, (ii) Meera Devi, (iii) Anjali, (iv) Ranjeet and (v) ...
Genentech Inc and Others Vs. Drugs Controller General of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Manmohan Singh, J. 1. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for injunction seeking various prayers inter alia decree a decree of declaration that the defendant's drug has not been tested as a biosimilar product under applicable law, defendant No. 3's CTR Registration Number CTR/2013/04/ 003549 is invalid and is not in accordance with applicable law. A decree of declaration that the approval granted by defendant No. 1 on October 29, 2012 to defendant No. 3's clinical trial protocol for the defendant's Drug is invalid and is not in accordance with applicable law and the manufacturing and marketing authorisation approved on 2nd June, 2015 by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 3 for the defendant's drug for all of the Indications is invalid. 2. By this order I propose to decide the above mentioned two applications. 3. It is alleged in the plaint that the suit has been filed on account of the imminent threat and credible apprehension of the launch of defendant No. 3's drug, TrastuRel ("Trastu...
Harish Kumar and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
1. Appellants Harish Kumar (A-1)-husband, Rajni (A-2)-mother-in-law and Sheesh Pal (A-3)-father in law of deceased Vijayata impugns the judgment dated 08.02.2011 and order on sentence dated 15.02.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge North Delhi in Sessions Case No. 02/10 arising out of FIR No. 254/09 Police Station Burari under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC whereby they were convicted for offence under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC and were sentenced as under: (i) Harish Kumar sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years under Section 498A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He is also sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304B IPC and pay fine of Rs.25,000 in default to undergo further imprisonment of one year. (ii) Rajni sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years under Section 498A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to under...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »