Court : Delhi
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:06. 02.2013 Judgment delivered on:29. 05.2013 + WP(C) 2620/2012 ISRAEL MILITARY INDUSTRIES LTD. .....Petitioner Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Advocates appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Mr Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr Ajay Bhargava, Mr Darpan Wadhwa, Mr Susmit Pushkar, Ms Priyanbada Mishra and Mr Anchit Oswal, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr Rajeeve Mehra, Additional Solicitor General with Ms Inderjeet Sidhu & Mr Ashish Virmani, Advocates with Mr. K.C. Sharma, Director, OFB. CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J WP(C) 2620/2012 & CM No. 5630-32/2012 FACTS/BACKGROUND 1 The petitioner before me, i.e., Israeli Military Industries Ltd. (in short IMI) is a company, which is wholly owned by the Government of Israel and incorporated under the laws of Israel. IMI is aggrieved by an order dated 05.03.2012, issued by the Ordinance Factory Board (in short OFB), i.e., respondent no.2. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Edwards v. Elliott - 88 U.S. 532 (1874) U.S. Supreme Court Edwards v. Elliott, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 532 532 (1874) Edwards v. Elliott 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 532 ERROR TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Syllabus 1. Where the record before the court on a case from a state court shows a declaration, pleas to it, issue on them, verdict on those issues, and judgment on the verdict, without allusion to any demurrer, the court will not refer to opinions in books of printed reports of the state court to contradict the record and to show that there was a demurrer to the declaration and that judgment overruling the demurrer was given. [It was stated in this case by counsel that the demurrer after judgment against it had been withdrawn.] 2. Where a record brought regularly to this Court on a writ of error and appeal bond which operate as a supersedeas shows a judgment quite intelligible and possible, and where a return to a certiorari issued, without prejudice, long a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Order delivered on: December 19, 2013 C.R.P. 87/2011 & CM No.12360/2011 (for stay) UTOPIAN BUILDERS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Atul Sahi, Advocate. versus RAKESH GANDHI Through ..... Respondent Mr. Ram Mehar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present petition under section 115 CPC has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18th February, 2011 passed by Additional District Judge (Central), Delhi, whereby the leave to defend application of respondent was allowed.2. Brief facts for adjudication of the present matter are that petitioner filed a suit for recovery under Order XXXVII CPC against the respondent. It was stated that respondent offered his services to the petitioner company for searching and finalizing a collaboration deal for construction of residential flats in R block, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and demaned `4 lac for his services as a temporary deposit. It was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2706-2716 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) Nos. 20539-20549 OF 2009.NOVARTIS AG .APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS .RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2728 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No.32706 OF 2009.NATCO PHARMA LTD. .APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS .RESPONDENTS AND CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2717-2727 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) Nos. 12984-12994 OF 2013.SLP(C)../2011 CC Nos.6667-6677 M/S CANCER PATIENTS AID ASSOCIATION .APPELLANT Versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS .RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Aftab Alam, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.3. What is the true import of section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970?. How does it interplay with clauses (j) and (ja) of section 2(1)?. Does the product for which the appellant claims patent qualify as a new product which comes by through an invention that has a feature that involves technical advance over the existing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: January 02, 2014 + C.R.P. No.9/2013 & CM No.852/2013 PALTOO RAM SINCE DECEASED THR LRS.& ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Mr.V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Vishal Saxena and Ms.Ashly Cherian, Advs. versus UMA DEVI Through ..... Respondent Mr.Amarjit Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 17th December, 2012 whereby objection filed by the petitioners were dismissed with cost of `10,000.2. Admittedly, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners came into the possession of the disputed property through one Late Sh. Vinay Pal Sharma whose name was reflecting in the revenue record to be the owner in the year 1974. In March, 1981 Lt. Sh. Vinay Pal Sharma filed a suit being CS (OS) No.176/1981 against MCD for permanent injunction, as owner in possession of Khasra Nos.587, 586, 584 and 588 situated i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
[REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.275 OF2014[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4857 of 2008]. Vishal Agrawal & Anr. ............ Appellant(s) Versus Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board & Anr. .............Respondent(s) JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.1. Leave granted.2. A pure question of law which arises for consideration is: whether the amendment in Section 151of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act]. which empowers the Court to take cognizance of an offence upon a report made by the police under Section 173 of the Code of Civil Procedure [hereinafter referred to as the Code]., would be applicable to the pending complaints filed before the aforesaid amendment. To answer this question, scope and interpretation of Section 151, as it stood prior to the amendment, also needs to be considered. This issue has arisen in the following set of facts:3. The respondent, viz. Chhattisgarh State...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Lobo, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 07/04/2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, North Goa at Panaji (Appellate Court) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.66 of 2011 and has prayed to quash and set aside the same and to restore the order dated 30/04/2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji (Trial Court) in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.80/2009/A. 3. By order dated 13/06/2012, Rule was issued in the matter and it was directed that interim custody of the child which was already with the petitioner would continue to remain with her until the final disposal of the petition. 4. The petitioner and respondent were married in Goa on 08/05/2007 and the marriage was registered before the Civil Registrar of Ilhas under Registration No.424/2007. Out of the said we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:11. 12.2018 Pronounced on:10. 04.2019 + W.P.(C) 11467/2018, CM APPL. 44376-44378/2018 MAHINDRA ELECTRIC MOBILITY LIMITED AND ANR. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ....... RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioners ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner ....... RESPONDENTS versus versus TATA MOTORS LIMITED & ANR COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA versus MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS + W.P.(C) 6610/2014 + W.P.(C) 6634/2014, CM APPL. 20409/2014 + W.P.(C) 7087/2014, CM APPL. 16614/2014, CM APPL. 39827/2018 + W.P.(C) 7121/2014, CM APPL. 16680/2014, CM APPL. 31959/2018 + W.P.(C) 7186/2014, CM APPL. 16889/2014 + W.P.(C) 7306/2014, CM APPL. 17096/2014 + W.P.(C) 7321/2014, CM APPL. 17118/2014 SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD UNION OF INDIA & ORS. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT LT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009CriLJ614
Vijay Kumar Verma, J.1. 'Whether more than one F.I.R. can be registered regarding the same incident or incidents' is the cardinal question that falls for consideration in this revision, by means of which the order dated 29.07.2008, passed by Sri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate Gorakhpur in Case No. 900 of 2007 (Parvez Parwaz v. Yogi Aditya Nath and Ors.) has been challenged.2. By the impugned order, the application moved by the revisionist (herein-after to be referred as 'the applicant') under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Cr.P.C'.), has been rejected merely on the ground that there is no justification to get the second FIR registered regarding the same incidents.3. The facts emerging from the record, shorn of unnecessary details, leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that the applicant Parvez Parwaz moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Gorakhpur on 16.11.200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:6. h March, 2013 + CRL.M.C.1752/2012 SAKET AGGARWAL Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Mohit Mathur with Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocates Versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. Aggrieved by an order dated 16.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), New Delhi, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) to set aside the summoning order and quashing of the complaint for an offence punishable under Section 174 and 175 of Indian Penal Code(IPC).2. As per the averments made in the Petition, one M/s. Kartik Traders having its office at S-27, Brindavan Garden, Sahibabad imported 22400 kgs of dry medicinal herb material Inula Racemosa and 400 kgs of dry medicinal herb material Chinese Ginseng which arrived at ...
Tag this Judgment!