Court : Delhi
G.S. Sistani, J. Oral: 1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus thereby directing respondents to produce their minor daughter, Fareen, who has been missing since 27.12.2015. 2. As per the petition, the age of Fareen is 17 years and three months (date of birth is 10.12.1998). It has been alleged in the petition that one, Asif, who has been arrayed as respondent no.6 in this petition, had kidnapped Fareen. 3. Notice in this petition was issued on 15.3.2016, when Fareen, daughter of the petitioners, and Asif, respondent no.6, were produced in Court. We had interacted with the petitioners; their daughter, Fareen; and also with Asif, respondent no.6 in kthe Chamber. Asif and Fareen had submitted that their Nikah has been performed and they are living as husband and wife. Fareen had refused to join the company of her parents. 4. On 15.3.2016 it was also informed to the Court that this is the second oc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 3rd February, 2015 of the respondent no. 1 Competition Commission of India (CCI) in case No. 59/2011 holding no violation of the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 having been committed, in spite of the Director General (DG) of the CCI in its Report having recommended that there is contravention of the provisions of the Act. The petition was entertained and notice thereof issued. 2. After notice, when the petition was listed before this Court on 12th February, 2016, I had of my own enquired from the counsels whether not such an order was appealable before the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT). 3. The counsels drew attention to Section 53A(1)(a) of the Competition Act which empowers COMPAT to hear and dispose of appeals against any direction issued or decision made or order passed by the Commission under Sub-Sections (2) and (6) of Section 26... . It was further poin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
These sixteen appeals give rise to common questions of law concerning the method of calculation of compensation in accident claim cases involving deaths of children in motor vehicular accidents and hence have been taken up for being decided together by this common judgment. Factual Matrix 2. The background facts leading to these appeals in each case may be taken note of at the outset in chronological order. Case 'A' : MAC Appeal Nos. 226/2010 and 554/2010 (In re: death of three months' old child Rama Kant) 3. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 16.01.2009 of motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) in accident claim case (Suit No. 518/1993, re-numbered as 1345/2000) instituted on 03.07.1993. The claim case had been presented by Lala Ram and Ram Sakhi (the claimants), parents of three months? old child named Rama Kant who had died in the accident that occurred on 17.03.1993 involving rash driving of Maruti Van bearing No. DL 2CB 2882 (the offending vehicle), admittedly in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. At the outset we may note that the appeal preferred by the co-convict : Ramesh Lal viz. Criminal Appeal No.857/2001 has abated in view of the fact that he expired on April 29, 2013. The said fact was recorded by us in the Order dated May 09, 2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.857/2001. 2. Thus, the present appeal decides the fate of Abhey Singh who seeks to assail the judgment dated October 12, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in S.C.No.2/2001 whereby he has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and consequently in terms of a separate order on sentence passed on the same date he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs. 2,000/-; in default of which he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. 3. The finding of guilt has been returned by the learned Trial Judge by accepting the testimony of Ram Babu Shah PW-7 who...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated 28th February 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in 1771/Del/2005 for the Assessment Year ( AY ) 2001-02. Background facts 2. The background facts are that the Assessee, which is the Indian ITA No. 7/2007 subsidiary of Herbalife International Inc. ( HII ), USA, carries on business of trading and marketing of herbal products for use in weight management, to improve nutrition and enhance personal care. The Assessee was incorporated as a company in India with 100% foreign equity participation, pursuant to an approval granted by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Secretariat for Industrial Assistant, Ministry of Industry, Government of India. The approval was obtained by HII. In terms of the approval, the Assessee was to manufacture herbal products on contract basis in India and should not import these items. 3. It is stated that HII developed significant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The Revenue has preferred the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act ) assailing an order dated 2ndAugust, 2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal ) in ITA No.1903/Del/2001. The aforesaid appeal (ITA No.1903/Del/2001) was preferred by the Assessee against an order dated 22nd February, 2001 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] whereby the Assessee s appeal against an assessment order dated 29th March, 2000 for AY 1997-98 was rejected. 2. The controversy involved in the present appeal relates to computation of capital gains arising from transfer of an undertaking by the Assessee to a new company, M/s Matsushita Television and Audio India Ltd., in terms of a scheme of arrangement sanctioned by this Court, under Section 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956. Whilst the Assessee claims that it has incurred a short term capital loss of Rs.11,14,31,696/- on the sale of the said u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. The present appeal and Petition filed by M/s. Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Mr. Adarsh Mundhra, concerns the failure of the Customs authorities to complete the proceedings concerning the revocation of the Customs House Agent ("CHA") licence of the Petitioner/Appellant within the time period stipulated in Regulation 22(5) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 ("CHALR"). 2. While, the appeal of the Appellant is directed against the order dated 11th March, 2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("CESTAT") in Appeal No. C/51800/2014-CU(DB), the writ petition pertains to the subsequent Show Cause Notice issued by the Respondents to the Petitioner on 17th March, 2015. 3. The facts in brief are that the CHA licence issued to the Petitioner was suspended on 6th September, 2013. In terms of Circular No.9/2010 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs ("CBEC"), the proceedings are required to be co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. I.A. No. 2261/2015 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. I.A. No. 2260/2015 Plaintiff by this application under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC alleges violation by the defendants of the directions contained in paragraph 22 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 24.11.2014. The said paragraph 22 reads as under: "22. In CS (OS) 1076/2011, vide order dated 9th October, 2014, Perpetuuiti Techno-soft Service Private Limited (plaintiff herein) was impleaded as defendant No. 4. The learned counsel for the defendant herein pressed that the interim order already passed on 6th May, 2011 against the defendants No. 1 to 3 therein may also continue against the newly impleaded defendant No. 4(plaintiff herein). Subsequently, I.A. No. 20431/2014 under Order 39 R.1 and 2 CPC was filed by the defendant (plaintiff therein) with a prayer that the interim order already passed on 6th May, 2011 and cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.(Oral) I.A. No. 4736/2016 (Under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC) 1. The sole defendant in the suit has been proceeded ex parte. Plaintiffs have filed affidavit by way of evidence. At this stage plaintiffs have filed this application for amendment of the plaint to bifurcate the pecuniary jurisdiction for each of the plaintiffs. Since the defendant is ex parte and amendments prayed for are only technical in nature, amendment application is allowed. Amended plaint is taken on record. I.A stands disposed of. CS(OS) No. 617/2007 2. This suit for permanent injunction, seeking restraint against the infringement of the copyrights of the plaintiffs, is filed by a total of six plaintiffs. Plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 are one group which own the Microsoft Windows and other softwares. Plaintiff nos. 3 and 4 are the second group and which are the owners of the Autodesk softwares. Plaintiff no. 5 is the third group owning the Adobe series softwares, and plaintiff no.6 is the fourth group which o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. CM No. 13503/2015 ((correction of name of advocate in the order dated 16.04.2015) This is an application filed by the appellant seeking correction of the name of the advocate of the appellant in the order dated 16.04.2015. The application is allowed, the name of the advocate of the Appellant Mr. Tapan Chaudhary shall be read in the order dated 16.04.2015 as having appeared for the appellant in place of Mr. A.A.Aughssian and Mr Sumit Sarna, Advocates. The application is disposed of. FAO(OS) 15/2015 1. The appellant, defendant in the suit, has filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 15.10.2014, whereby the learned Single Judge has confirmed the ad interim order dated 27.05.2013, by which order the appellant had been restrained from using the trademark WORLD BOOK or any other mark that is deceptively similar to the plaintiff s registered trademark WORLD BOOK in respect of printing/publishing of books and other reference materials and educational products ei...
Tag this Judgment!