Delhi Court June 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.
Ramo Devi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
1. By the present appeal the appellant challenges the impugned judgment dated 9th April, 2015 convicting her for the offence punishable under Sections 306/34 IPC in FIR No.226/2013 registered at PS Sangam Vihar and the order on sentence dated 16th April, 2015 directing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that DD No.7A was received on 27th May, 2013 at 1:30 AM informing that one girl has hanged herself at house No.J-II/527, Gali No.8, Gupta Colony, Sangam Vihar which was assigned to SI Vikram, PW-23. SI Vikram along with Constable Madan Mohan, PW-15 reached the spot and noticed that one piece of chunni was lying on the floor and rest part of the chunni was attached to the iron pipe on the roof. The neighbours informed that the injured had already been removed by her...
Rekha Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
1. Rekha and Sheetal challenge the impugned judgment dated April 25, 2014 convicting them for offences punishable under Sections 373/34, 366A/34, 342/34 IPC and Sections 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (in short ITP Act ) and the order on sentence dated May 01, 2014 by which they have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 373/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 366A/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for offence punishable under Sections 34/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 3 ITP Act; rigours imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 4 ITP Act, rigorous imprisonment for ...
Gillette India Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser (India)Pvt Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. I.A. No. 6421/2016 (under Section 149 CPC) 1. Let the plaintiff make up the deficiency in the court fee within one week from today. I.A. stands disposed of. CS(OS) No. 251/2016 and I.A. No. 6420/2016 (stay) 2. This application is filed by the plaintiff in this suit for injunction and damages against the stated disparaging video advertisement issued by the defendant. Plaintiff is Gillette India Ltd. which manufactures razors for hair removal and plaintiff sells these razors under the trademark VENUS and SIMPLY VENUS. Plaintiff's razors have a typical light blue colour. Defendant/Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. manufactures hair removal creams and sells the said hair removal creams under the trademark 'VEET'. The issue to be decided by this Court is the grant of ad interim injunction, till the disposal of this injunction application, against the defendant airing the impugned advertisement which as per the plaintiff is disparaging and contains falsehood. The relie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›