Court : Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI3d September, 2019 Date of decision:31. t October, 2019 CS(COMM) 238/2019 GSK CONSUMER HEALTHCARE S.A ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Shwetasree Majumder with Ms. Tanya Varma and Ms. Eva Bishwal, Advs. Versus EG PHARMACEUTICALS & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Adv. for D-1. Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anshuman Sharma, Mr. Vivek Sarin and Ms. Sadaf Chaudhary, Advs. for D-2. Mr. Vivek Sarin, Adv. for D-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW IA No.6749/2019 (of the plaintiff u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC).1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit against (i) EG Pharmaceuticals; (ii) Zydus Healthcare Ltd.; and, (iii) Biochem Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the registered trade mark OTRIVIN of the plaintiff, by adopting the mark BIOTRIVIN for the same goods i.e. nasal decongestant, and thereby passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff, and for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI BAIL APPL.1447/2019 Judgment reserved on :26. 08.2019 Date of decision :23.10.2019 ABHIJEET GHOSH ..... Appellate Through: Mr.Amit Khemka, Mr. Bhupender Singh, Mr. Kartikey Yadav, Advocates versus STATE Of NCT DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nitin Saluja, Ms. Shivani Luthra, Advs. For complainant, Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for State with Inspr. Rambishan, AATS Dwarka. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT ANU MALHOTRA, J.1. The applicant who is in custody since 31.01.2018 in FIR No.717/2017, PS Dabri for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 r/w Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 seeks the grant of regular bail vide the present bail application no.1447/2019.2. The status report submitted by the State by Inspector Ram Kishan AATS Dwarka District has stated the facts of the case to the effect that on the interveni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:30. 09/2019 + FAO (OS) No.196/2019 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate. versus SYNERGY STEELS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate, Mr. Sidhant Nath, Advocate, Ms. Diya Kapoor, Advocate and Mr. Akshay Pratap Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI JUDGMENT G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) C.M.No.43697/2019 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. C.M. Nos.43698/2019 (condonation of delay in filing) & 43699/2019 (condonation of delay in re-filing) These are applications for condonation of delay of 81 days in filing and 7 days in re-filing the appeal. FAO(OS) 196/2019 page 1 of 9 For the reasons stated in the applications, delay is condoned. Applications stand disposed of. FAO (OS) No.196/2019 The present appeal is direc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ 35 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:30. h July, 2019 + CRL.A. 887/2002 and Crl. M.A. 12247/2019 and 31654/2019 ABDUL JABBAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S.A. Khan, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP with SI Sumit Kumar, Spl. Cell Janakpuri CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellant Abdul Jabbar was brought to trial in the court of Sessions (in Sessions no.64/2001) with two others (Mohd. Asgar Konshi and Gurinderjeet Singh) on the basis of report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) submitted upon conclusion of investigation into first information report (no.168/2001) of police station Parliament Street involving offences punishable under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 123 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 and Sections 3,4 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. At the conclusion of the said trial, he (the appellant) and the other said two were found...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on 28.11.2018 Judgment Pronounced on 24.07.2019 ARB.A. (COMM.) No.39/2016 & I.A.No.14153/2016 INDEEN BIO POWER LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Hiroo Advani with Mr. Shashank and Garg, Mr. Tariq Khan, Mr.Dbeojyoti Sengupta, Advocates. versus M/S. EFS FACILITIES SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD... Respondent Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vasanth Rajasekaran, Mr.Sukrit Seth and Mr. Saurabh Babulkar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J: Preface 1. This appeal preferred under section 37 the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short '1996 Act') is directed against the order dated 15.09.2016, passed by the arbitral tribunal. The arbitral tribunal via the impugned order has held for the reasons given therein that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes obtaining between the parties.2. It would be relevant to note that the constitution of the arbitral tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:02. 07.2019 + OMP (COMM) 16/2017 & IA No.528/2017 NTPC LIMITED ........ Petitioner versus VOITH HYDRO JOINT VENTURE Advocates who appeared in these cases: ..... Respondent For the... Petitioner: Mr Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr Ashish Kumar and Ms Shantanu Sharma. For the Respondent: Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate, Mr Ciccu Mukhapadhaya, Sr. Advocate with Mr Omar Ahmad, Mr Vikram Shah and Mr Ishan Gaur. CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner (hereafter NTPC) has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the A&C Act) impugning the arbitral award dated 23.08.2016 (hereafter the impugned award) rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal (by majority) comprising of Professor Dr. Albert Jan Van Den Berg (Presiding Arbitrator), Mr Michael Black, QC (Co-Arbitrator) and Justice (Retd.) G. N. Ray (Co-Arbitrator). The arbitral award was rend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Crl.M.C.No.3865/2016 Judgment reserved on :19. 02.2018 Date of decision :31. 05.2019 HARI KISHAN Through: Mr. Raj Singh, Advocate versus ........ Petitioner STATE (NCT of Delhi) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State with Inspector Pyare Lal. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT ANU MALHOTRA, J.1. The petitioner, Hari Kishan Singh S/o Jaipal Singh, has been chargesheeted in relation to FIR No.20/2014, Police Station Qutub Minar Metro, for the alleged possession of a live round (8MM KF-91) on 25.2.2014 at 12.35 hours at the Saket Metro Station (South Side X- BIS machine) when the same was detected by Ct. R.K.Rout (sitting on the machine) and Ct. Ghatage Sahas M. who was conducting the baggage checking and has thus been chargesheeted for the alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.2. The petitioner, vide this petition seeks the quashing of the said FIR submitting to the ef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~CP-16 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:06. 05.2019 CO.PET. 400/2012 REGULUS INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT........ Petitioner SUPER PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PVT LTD..... Respondent Through Mr.Akhil Sachar, Ms.Sunanda, Advs. versus Through Ms.Kaadambari and Ms.Mansi Sinha, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) This petition is filed under section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1. 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent company. The case of the petitioner is that on 13.11.2009 the respondent engaged the petitioner to perform certain management services in respect of the Gold Souk Mall in Kochi owned by the petitioner. On 21.12.2010 the petitioners engagement was duly extended under the cost-sheet duly executed by the parties. It is stated that the petitioner have provided services under the Agreement and raised invoices every month as per the terms agreed by the parties from time to time. It is pleaded that under the invoices so ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~13 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. 879/2012 & IA19602019 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ........ Petitioner Date of Decision :1. t May, 2019 Through: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Kishore Rawat and Mr.L.K.Tyagi, Advs. versus M/S SYNERGY STEELS LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ankit Jain, Mr.Sachin Jain, Mr.Sarvesh Rai, Ms.Diya Kapoor, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J.(Oral) 1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Arbitral Award dated 10.10.2011 passed by the Sole Arbitrator adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the following three Standard Fire and Special Perils policies (hereinafter referred to as Insurance Policies) taken by the respondent from the petitioner:-"(i) Policy No.360300/11/05/16600091 valid from 20.05.2005 to midnight of 19.05....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. (COMM) 222/2016 & IA235922015 Reserved on:28. 11.2018 Date of Decision :15. 04.2019 SUNBORNE ENERGY RAJASTHAN SOLAR PVT. LTD Through: Mr.Tarun Johri, Mr.Ankur Gupta and Mr.Ankit Saini, Advs. ........ Petitioner versus NTPC VIDYUT VYAPAR NIGAM LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Bharat Sangal and Ms.Babita Kushwaha, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA1 The petitioner by way of this present petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenges the majority Arbitral Award dated 27.10.2015 (hereinafter referred to as Impugned Award) passed by the Arbitral Tribunal dismissing the claims filed by the petitioner, while holding the respondent as entitled to encash the Bank Guarantee for Rs.2,62,27,000.00 furnished by the petitioner, and also awarding costs of proceedings in favour of the respondent.2. The disputes in the case are in relation to the Power Purchase Ag...
Tag this Judgment!