Court : Delhi
1. Whether reporters of the local news papers be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No 1. The Petitioner which is a private limited company having its registered office at Chandigarh seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to pay the Mumbai Port Trust (MPT) (Respondent No.3 herein) the demurrage charges claimed by MPT in respect of Lot No. 6747 belonging to the Petitioner. An alternate prayer is for a direction to the DGFT to reimburse the Petitioner the demurrage charges. The Petitioner also seeks the quashing of the auction held by the MPT on 7th November 2002 and for a direction to the MPT to decide the Petitioners representation dated 14th March 2002 regarding the levy of the accumulated demurrage/port charges.2. The Petitioner, a public limited company having its registered office at Chandigarh, is stated to have been incorporated with the main ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The petitioner, appointed as a constable with the Central Reserve Police Force in the year 1995, was attached with 131st Bn. CRPF in the year 2003, deployed at Dimapur. While he was on 30 days earned leave and 15 days paternity leave from 22.12.2003 to 04.02.2004 the 131st battalion moved to Gund Srinagar from Dimapur. Having no knowledge of the same, petitioner reported for duty at Dimapur on 04.02.2004 i.e. the Battalion Headquarter, when he was informed that Unit had moved in the meanwhile to Gund Srinagar.2. A party of personnel, including the petitioner, were sent under the command of Havaldar GT Mark, to the Battalion Headquarters at Gund Srinagar by train. En route, at the New Delhi Railway Station where the train had halted, the petitioner took permission to have tea and breakfast and thus he parted company for a few minutes but he disappeared from the station. As the train was about to leave, Hav.G.T.Mark and other members searched, but could not locate the petitioner. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. These three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18.09.2009 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.60/2009 arising out of FIR No.78/1997 registered at police station Najafgarh under Section 364-A read with Section 120-B IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellants Ranbir Singh Pehelwan, Ved Pal @ Vedu and Ranbir Singh @ Pappu alongwith one Virender Singh @ Gerra were found guilty of having committed the offence under Sections 364-A read with Section 120-B IPC. The appellant Ranbir Singh @ Pappu and the said Virender Singh @ Gerra were also convicted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. At this juncture, we may point out that initially eight accused had been sent up for trial. The three appellants in the present appeals and Virender Singh @ Gerra, all of whom were convicted and, Rajesh Dahiya, Ranbir Singh son of Shri Jage Ram, Smt Sajjani Devi and Rishikesh, who were acquitted by virt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. These three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18.09.2009 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.60/2009 arising out of FIR No.78/1997 registered at police station Najafgarh under Section 364-A read with Section 120-B IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellants Ranbir Singh Pehelwan, Ved Pal @ Vedu and Ranbir Singh @ Pappu alongwith one Virender Singh @ Gerra were found guilty of having committed the offence under Sections 364-A read with Section 120-B IPC. The appellant Ranbir Singh @ Pappu and the said Virender Singh @ Gerra were also convicted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. At this juncture, we may point out that initially eight accused had been sent up for trial. The three appellants in the present appeals and Virender Singh @ Gerra, all of whom were convicted and, Rajesh Dahiya, Ranbir Singh son of Shri Jage Ram, Smt Sajjani Devi and Rishikesh, who were acquitted by virt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No.442/2003 % 9th December, 2011 M/S. DELHI ASSAM ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate with Mr. Manu Beri, Advocate. Versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Atul Jha, Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL).1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 27.2.2003. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff/insurance RFA No.442/2003 Page 1 of 7 company/subrogee for recovery of ` 4,75,972/- against the appellant/defendant/common carrier..2. The facts of the case are that one M/s. K.L.J. Plasticizers, K.L.J. House, 63, Rama Marg, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi booked a consignment of orthoxylene with the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. Oral: 1. This case is on the Regular Board of this Court since 21.2.2012. No one is present for the parties although it is 12.45 P.M. I have, therefore, perused the record and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal. 2. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 1.7.2004 dismissing the suit for injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff. The suit pertains to a property admeasuring 2.5 biswa, i.e. 125 sq. yds., situated in khasra No. 512/1, Village Gadaipur, Tehsil Mehruali, New Delhi. Before proceeding further, I may note that defendants were ex parte in the trial Court. No written statement was filed on their behalf. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents/defendants, yet the trial Court dismissed the suit. 3. The trial Court has made the following observations for dismissing the suit:- “13. I am of the opinion that even ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :19. h February, 2013 % + CRL.REV.P.446/2011 VIDHU SETHI Through : ..... Petitioner Ms.Sanjana J.Bali, Mr.Saurabh Seth and Ms.Shweta Kapoor, Advs. versus STATE AND ANR. Through : ..... Respondents None for R-1. Mr.Mudit Jain and Mr.Hemant Chauhan, Advs. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI % PRATIBHA RANI, J.(ORAL) Crl.Rev.P. 446/2011 & Crl.M.A. No.1811/2011 (Stay) 1. The petitioner is facing trial in a case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. She has filed this Criminal Revision Petition feeling aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2011 passed by learned Addl.Session Judge, Incharge South-West District, Dwarka, Delhi whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by the complainant thereby permitting the complainant to confront the petitioner/accused with statement of account, during her cross examination.2. This is the second revision petition filed in respect of the order as to whether petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI C.S (OS) Nos. 1383/2005 Date of Decision:13. 09.2013 PREM RATAN RATHI & ORS. Through: ......Plaintiffs Mr. Amarjit Singh, Ms. Vernika Tomar, Ms.Vibha Arya, Advs Versus ASHISH IRON TRADING CO. & ANR. Through: ......Defendants Ex-parte. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. This is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement, passing off, unfair competition and dilution of the trademark RATHI, along with rendition of accounts and for destruction of all material bearing the impugned trademark/trade name.2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows. Plaintiff No.7, Rathi Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as the trust), is a trust registered under the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. Plaintiffs no. 1 to 6 are its trustees and they all belong to the family of late Sh. Gordhan Das Rathi. Plaintiffs no. 8 and 9 (hereinafter referred to as the companies) are two companies that are managed and controlled by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:10. h December, 2013. + RFA6532004 SUSHILA DEVI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRs ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Arun Mohan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Arvind Bhat & Mr. Kuber Giri, Advs. Versus ADELINE D. LALL (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Pradeep Dewan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Anupam Dhingra, Mr. Siko Sankar Mishra & Mr. Adbhut Pathak, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 16th September, 2004 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi in Suit No.107/2004 filed by the respondents) of specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 7th September, 1985 by the appellant of sale of House No.27, Road No.17, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, to the respondents/plaintiffs.2. The appeal was admitted for hearing and vide interim order dated 3 rd May, 2005, the direction in the impugned judgment for execution of the Sale Deed and the dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~R-34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: December 03, 2013 + CRL.A. 174/2005 MANTOON KUMAR Through : Ms.Charu Verma, Adv. ..... Appellant versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Firoz Khan Ghazi, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) Appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 36-B of the NDPS Act 1985 read with Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against the judgment and order on sentence by which the appellant stands convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. Case of the prosecution as noticed by the learned Trial Court is as under:(1) A secret information was received by SI K.L.Yadav which was recorded by him and conveyed to the SHO. A raiding party consisting of constable Dilbag, constable Ramesh and inspector Satyavrat was formed along with the informer. IO requested 4/5 passerby to join the investigation but none a...
Tag this Judgment!