Court : Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. [The advocate] has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is the mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of these things. He owes allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and justice. He must not consciously mis-state [sic] the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth...He must produce all the relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, the relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the most specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court. The code which requires a barrister to do all this is not a code of law. It is a code of honour. If he breaks it, he is offending against the rules of the profession and is subject to its discipline. (Lord Denning) (Rondel v Worsley 1966 (3) WLR 950) 1. It is the duty owed by the Bar to the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
V. Kameswar Rao, J. I.A. 21931/2014 in CS(OS) 3378/2014 I.A. 14073/2013 in CS(OS) 1712/2013 As similar applications under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC have been filed by the plaintiff in both the Suits wherein the averments are identical and the plaintiff being same and the defendants belong to the same group of companies, the applications are being disposed of by this Common order noting the facts in each application, separately. I.A. 21931/2014 In this application the plaintiff has made the following prayers: "a) Restrain the defendants, their Principal officers. Promoters, Directors, Employees, Family Members, Partners/Proprietors, associates and Associate Companies/Sister concern as the case may be, servants, agents and anyone acting for and on their behalf of using the Mark/brand name VARDHMAN or VARDHMAN PLAZAS or the Corporate Name VARDHMAN or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff company's and by extension the Vardhman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (1908) impugns the judgment and decree dated 26th August, 2004 of the Court of Shri H.S. Sharma, Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi in Suit No.662/2001; a) of recovery of possession of the first floor (with mezzanine floor) of property no.C-217, Gali No.1, Majlis Park, Delhi; b) of recovery of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month w.e.f. 16th October, 2004 till the date of delivery of possession; and, c) of injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from creating any third party interest in the said portion of the property and from handing over possession thereof to any other person. 2. The appeal was filed as an indigent person and finding that the appellant has no immovable property and no source of livelihood except Rs.4,000/- per month which the appellant is getting as maintenance from her husband, was entertained and notice thereof issued and the operation of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307/186/332/353/148/342/440/120-B IPC vide the impugned judgment dated February 20, 2015 and vide order dated March 27, 2015 they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonments ranging from a period of 9 years to 4 years which will be dealt in detail while dealing with the order on sentence. Besides the appellants, 4 more persons were convicted i.e. Rehan, Satpal Bedi, Dheeraj and Dharm who preferred no appeal, thus this Court in the present appeals is concerned with the above-noted appellants only. 2. The sequence of events leading to the registration of FIR No.118/2011 at PS Subzi Mandi under Sections 307/186/333/353/148/342/440/120-B IPC exhibited as Ex.PW-2/A are that one FIR No.207/2011 was registered at PS Uttam Nagar under Sections 307/34 and 27 Arms Act wherein Bimla the informant, mother of Ajay @ Ajju suffered a firearm injury on her right thigh. In the said FIR Khalil Ahmed PW-6 and Akbar Kha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. 1. The appellant/plaintiff impugns the order dated 20.01.2016, passed in CS(OS) 585/2011, whereby a preliminary decree of partition has been passed holding the appellant/plaintiff entitled to 1/3rd share in the immovable properties stated in para 9(i), (iii) and (iv) of the amended plaint and 1/3rd right out of the 50% ownership rights of Sh. N.L. Sehgal in House No.101, Bilkeshwar Colony, Haridwar (Uttrakhand), stated in para 9(ii) of the plaint and 1/3rd of the amount lying in the sole bank account of late Sh. N.L. Sehgal and 1/3rd share of the 50% of the amounts in the joint accounts of Late Sh. N.L. Sehgal held jointly with his wife, the respondent No. 1. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the subject suit for partition, rendition of accounts, permanent and mandatory injunctions against the respondents. The appellant seeks partition of the properties (movable and immovable) left behind by late Sh N.L. Sehgal, who was the husband of the respondent No.1 and the fat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as HMA ) assails the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2009 passed in HMA 128/2008 by Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi, whereby the learned ADJ while allowing the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HMA, has passed a decree of dissolution of marriage in favour of the respondent/husband and against the appellant/wife. 2. The parties were married on 21.07.2003 in Delhi. One issue was born out of the wedlock on 29.05.2004 at Chandigarh. In his petition, the respondent/husband averred that after coming back from the honeymoon, the appellant lived with the respondent and his family only for a few days. Thereafter, the appellant left for Chandigarh to resume her work, and the respondent along with his parents was living in Delhi. The respondent claimed that when the appellant conceived, the respondent requested her to return to Delhi at her matrimonial home. However, she did not retu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
G.S. Sistani, J. Oral: 1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant/State under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C. ) against judgment dated 07.12.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, thereby acquitting the respondents in case FIR No.33/90 registered under Section 498-A/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Anand Parbat. 2. At the outset, we may notice that respondent No.1 is the husband of the victim, respondent No.2 is the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the victim and respondent No.3 is the sister-in-law (Jethani) of the victim. 3. It may be noticed that on 26.05.2016 a statement was made by the victim before the Court that since the year 2010 she has been residing with her husband (respondent no.1) and her children. The victim had also made a statement that all the disputes and differences between the parties stand resolved. We had adjourned the matter for today and directed the children of the victim to remain present in Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. A plaintiff prefers this interlocutory appeal aggrieved by the order of a learned single judge, whereby he accepted the application of some defendants (Defendant No. 1 filed IA No. 7706 of 2012, hereafter called "Google India", IA 7707 of 2012 filed by third Defendant, Research in Motion India Pvt. Ltd. ('RIMPL') and IA No. 13852 of 2012- by the tenth defendant, hereafter "Amazon") and directed that they should be deleted from the array of parties, in a copyright infringement suit. The plaintiff is hereby referred to as "Blueberry". 2. The suit alleged that in 2003, Blueberry published books series titled 'Moral Stories' Parts-I, II and III each containing four stories. Part-I contained the stories (i) Careless Tanu; (ii) The Merchant Learns A Lesson; (iii) Sejal's Gift for Soni and (iv) Selfish Monu. Part-II contained the stories (i) The Greedy Fisherman; (ii) A Flower Went for a Walk; (iii) How The Rainbow Was Formed and (iv) Two Good Friends and Part-III cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These are two writ petitions by the Petitioner, DCM Shriram Industries Ltd., challenging the orders dated 15th April 1998 and 14th March 2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ( CEGAT ). While the first mentioned order dated 15th April 1998 of the CEGAT emanated from a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 19th February 1991 issued by the Central Excise Department ('Department') to the Petitioner, pertaining to the period 1st March 1986 to 31st December 1989, the second order dated 14th March 2000 of the CEGAT emanated from an SCN dated 5th July 1990 issued by the Department to the Petitioner pertaining to the period 1st January 1990 to 26th March 1990. 2. At the outset it was stated by Mr C. Hari Shankar, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner on instructions that the Petitioner was not pressing W.P. (C) No. 1926 of 2000 which challenges the CEGAT's order dated 14th March 2000 emanating from the SCN dated 5th July 1990. Accordingly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgement and decree dated 4th June, 2015 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ)-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District, New Delhi of dismissal of Suit No. 424/2013 filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 12,78,470/- along with pendente lite and future interest consequent to rejection under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC of the plaint on the ground of the relief claimed, from the averments contained therein, being barred by time. 2. Notice of the appeal was issued and the Trial Court record requisitioned. Considering that in the event of the appeal being allowed the suit will have to be remanded, after admitting the appeal on 10th February, 2016 it was posted for hearing for today. The counsels have been heard and the Trial Court record to the extent required perused. 3. The appellant/plaintiff on 10th December, 2013 instituted the suit from which this ...
Tag this Judgment!