Delhi Court December 2017 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2017 Page 11 of about 598 results (0.008 seconds)Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited vs.digital Cable Network
Court: Delhi
F-39 $~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 462/2016 SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. K.K. Khetan, Advocate versus DIGITAL CABLE NETWORK Through: None. ..... Defendant % Date of Decision:19. h December, 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, damages, rendition of accounts etc. The prayers made in the plaint are reproduced hereinbelow:-"(i) An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their officers, servants, agents, partners and representatives and all others acting for and on their behalf from either engaging in themselves or from authorizing, the recording, distributing, broadcasting, public performance/communication to the public or in any other way exploiting the cinematograph films, sound recordings and/or literary works (lyrics) and Musical works (musical composition) or other work or ...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh @ Pappu vs.state Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :19. h DECEMBER, 2017 + CRL.A. 1050/2011 & Crl.M.A.8510/2014 (u/S482Cr.P.C.) NARESH @ PAPPU ..... Appellant Through : Mr.I.A.Alvi, Advocate, along with appellant present in person. Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Hari Shankar, Advocate, along with complainant present in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(ORAL) 1. By a judgment dated 08.08.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.197/2008 arising out of FIR No.57/07, Police Station Kanjhawala, the appellant Naresh @ Pappu was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 308 IPC for inflicting injuries to his wife PW-1 (Sushila). By an order dated 10.08.2011 the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with fine `5,000/-. Aggrieved by the said findings, the present appeal has been filed.2. During the course of arguments, the appellant opted to give up challenge to the findings...
Tag this Judgment!Ksc Construction Co. Vs.union of India
Court: Delhi
$~23 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB. P. 751/2017 Date of decision:19. h December, 2017 KSC CONSTRUCTION CO. ........ Petitioner Through Mr.S.W.Haider, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through Mr.Jagjit Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for Railways with Mr.Preet Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J.(Oral) This petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and 1. Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the work pertaining to Construction of Limited height subway in lieu of U/M L-Xing No.C-95 at Km. 106/2-3 and C-98 at Km. 108/9-10on DLl-BTl section under ADEN/JHl by cut and cover method was awarded to the petitioner on 1st October, 2014 for Rs.2,86,93,655/-. ARB.P. 751/2017 Page 1 2. The agreement between the parties has an arbitration agreement in form of clause 64 of the General Con...
Tag this Judgment!Food Inspector vs.rupesh Jain & Ors.
Court: Delhi
* % + FOOD INSPECTOR CRL.L.P. 458/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Pronounced on:19. 12.2017 ..... PETITIONER Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for State. versus RUPESH JAIN & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL VINOD GOEL, J.1. Challenge in this Criminal Leave to Appeal No.458/2015 is to order dated 09.02.2010 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (in short Ld. ACMM), New Delhi in Complaint Case no.whereby the Ld. ACMM decided not to take cognizance of the report submitted by the Public Analyst on 29.04.2008 with respect to the sample lifted by Food Inspector of Premium Chewing Tobacco on 05.04.2008.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present Criminal Leave to Appeal are that the Food Inspector Suniti Kumar Gupta took a sample consisting of 18 x 50 grams of Premium Chewing Tobacco from the accused on 05.04.2008 and sent the same for analysis to the Public Analyst. Crl. L.P. No.458/2015 Page 1 of 9...
Tag this Judgment!M. Gautam Infra Ltd. (In vol.liqn.) Vs.............
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:19. 12.2017 + CO.PET.66/2017 M. GAUTAM INFRA LTD. (IN VOL.LIQN.) ....... Petitioner Through Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani, Sr.Standing Counsel with Ms.Megha Bharara, Adv. for OL. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a petition is filed under section 497(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (herein referred to as the Act) by the Official Liquidator (OL), seeking voluntary winding up of M/s. M Gautam Infra Limited (herein referred to as the said company).2. The said Company was incorporated on 12.10.1992 under the provisions of the Act with the Registrar of Companies (ROC), having authorized share capital of Rs.50,00,000 divided into 5,00,000 (Five Lacs) equity shares of Rs.10/- each. It is pertinent to mention that on 06.09.2011 the said company changed its name from M/s M. Gautam Lease Finance Limited to M/s M. Gautam Infra Limited . CO.PET.66/2017 Page 1 3. The registered office of the said company is sit...
Tag this Judgment!Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited vs.friends Cable Network
Court: Delhi
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 3267/2015 SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. K.K. Khetan, Advocate versus FRIENDS CABLE NETWORK Through: None. ..... Defendant % Date of Decision:19. h December, 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, damages, rendition of accounts etc. The prayers made in the plaint are reproduced hereinbelow:-"37. (i) An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their officers, servants, agents, partners and representatives and all others acting for and on their behalf from either engaging in themselves or from authorizing, the recording, distributing, broadcasting, public performance/communication to the public or in any other way exploiting the cinematograph films, sound recordings and/or literary works (lyrics) and Musical CS(OS) 3267/2015 Page 1 of 7 works (musical com...
Tag this Judgment!Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-18 vs.shri Om Prakash Chandna
Court: Delhi
$~43 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON:19. 12.2017 ITA11642017, CM APPL.46236/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus SHRI OM PRAKASH CHANDNA Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(ORAL) 1. The question of law sought to be urged by the revenue in its appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is with respect to the alleged error in setting aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the course of a search assessment under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The appellate Commissioner who considered the findings, made essentially upon remand by the ITAT, set aside the addition of `22,25,885/- attributed to the assessee. The AO had held that the additions of the amount which was not hitherto disclosed by the assessee was warranted because he had contributed in the pur...
Tag this Judgment!Sahil Singh Ravish vs.university of Delhi & Ors
Court: Delhi
$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:19. 12.2017 LPA7882017 SAHIL SINGH RAVISH ..... Appellant versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS CORAM:-"HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA Advocates who appeared in this case: ........ RESPONDENTS For the Appellant : Appellant in person. Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocates for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5. Mr. T. Singhdev with Ms. Puja Sarkar and Mr. Tarun Verma, Advocates for respondent No.3. Mr. Preet Pal Singh with Ms. Priyam Mehta, Advocates for Bar Council of India. : For the... RESPONDENTS S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) CM No.45392/2017 (exemption) LPA7882017 & CM No.45391/2017 (stay) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order of the learned Single 1. LPA7882017 Page 1 of 9 Judge rejecting his petition. The Respondent/University had by an order withheld the result, contending that the Appellant/Petitioner did not have the requisite minimum at...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Prakash & Ors vs.union of India & Ors
Court: Delhi
$~13 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h December, 2017 + W.P.(C) 9053/2014 ........ Petitioners Through: Ms. Pooja Yadav, Adv. HARI PRAKASH & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Siddharth Panda, Adv. for L&B/LAC. Mr. Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel for DDA. Mr. Chandra Prakash, Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Kummar, SS of Legal, DMRC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. With the consent of the parties, present petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra No.16measuring 3 Bighas and 18 Biswas, Khasra No.2measuring 1 Bigha and 4 Biswas, Khasra No.24 measuring 4 Bighas 00 Biswas, Khasra No.16measuring 1 Bigha and Khasra No.16measuring 16 Biswas wrongly typed in ...
Tag this Judgment!Dalip Singh vs.state
Court: Delhi
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:11. 08.2017 Judgment Pronounced on:19.12.2017 CRL.APPEAL7332016 DALIP SINGH ..... APPELLANT Through: Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate. versus STATE ..... RESPONDENT Through: Ms Radhika Kolluru, APP for the State along with Inspector C.R.Meena and SI Neeraj Yadav, PS New Ashok Nagar. CORAM: HONBLE JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL VINOD GOEL, J.1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed impugning the judgment dated 18.05.2013 and order on sentence dated 27.05.2013 passed by the Ld. District and Sessions Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in FIR No.77/2001 (SC No.30/10/08) whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. The Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 1 of 29 ...
Tag this Judgment!