Court : Delhi
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 724/2017 & I.As. 12269/2017, 12271/2017, 6985/2018, 8949/2018 AND167812018 UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATION LTD. AND ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Advocate with Ms. Suhasini Raina, Ms. Gitanjali Mathew and Ms. Disha Sharma, Advocates versus 1337X.TO AND ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocate as Amicus Curiae with Ms. Mamta Jha, Advocate. Mr. Tanvir Nayar, Advocate with Mr. Ramnish Khanna, Advocate for D-8. Mr. Abhishek Bakshi, Advocate for defendant No.10. Ms. Suruchi Thapar, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for defendant No.19. Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Advocate with Mr. Aditya Shandilya and Mr. Tushar Bhardwaj, Advocates for Reliance Jio Ltd. Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Kr. Tiwari, Advocate for defendants No.25 and 26. WITH CS (COMM) 724/2017 & Ors. Page 1 of 99 + CS(COMM) 768/2018 & I.As. 4329/2018, 4331/2018, 10396/2018 AND167822018 UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.& ORS. ....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 724/2017 & I.As. 12269/2017, 12271/2017, 6985/2018, 8949/2018 AND167812018 UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATION LTD. AND ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Advocate with Ms. Suhasini Raina, Ms. Gitanjali Mathew and Ms. Disha Sharma, Advocates versus 1337X.TO AND ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocate as Amicus Curiae with Ms. Mamta Jha, Advocate. Mr. Tanvir Nayar, Advocate with Mr. Ramnish Khanna, Advocate for D-8. Mr. Abhishek Bakshi, Advocate for defendant No.10. Ms. Suruchi Thapar, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for defendant No.19. Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Advocate with Mr. Aditya Shandilya and Mr. Tushar Bhardwaj, Advocates for Reliance Jio Ltd. Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Kr. Tiwari, Advocate for defendants No.25 and 26. WITH CS (COMM) 724/2017 & Ors. Page 1 of 99 + CS(COMM) 768/2018 & I.As. 4329/2018, 4331/2018, 10396/2018 AND167822018 UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.& ORS. ....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 724/2017 & I.As. 12269/2017, 12271/2017, 6985/2018, 8949/2018 AND167812018 UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATION LTD. AND ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Advocate with Ms. Suhasini Raina, Ms. Gitanjali Mathew and Ms. Disha Sharma, Advocates versus 1337X.TO AND ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocate as Amicus Curiae with Ms. Mamta Jha, Advocate. Mr. Tanvir Nayar, Advocate with Mr. Ramnish Khanna, Advocate for D-8. Mr. Abhishek Bakshi, Advocate for defendant No.10. Ms. Suruchi Thapar, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for defendant No.19. Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Advocate with Mr. Aditya Shandilya and Mr. Tushar Bhardwaj, Advocates for Reliance Jio Ltd. Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Kr. Tiwari, Advocate for defendants No.25 and 26. WITH CS (COMM) 724/2017 & Ors. Page 1 of 99 + CS(COMM) 768/2018 & I.As. 4329/2018, 4331/2018, 10396/2018 AND167822018 UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.& ORS. ....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 747/2018, C.M. APPL.3130/2018 & 14752/2018 Reserved on:-"02.08.2019 Date of Decision:-"28.08.2019 MANISH SHARMA ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Ravi Kant Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Ms. Mansi Chadha, Mr. Sameer Rohtagi, Mr. Siddhant Chaudhary and Mr. Akshit Kumar, Advocates.... Petitioner in person. versus LT. GOVERNOR AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. N.K. Singh with Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Advocates, for respondent No.1. Mr. Viraj. R. Datar, Mr. Nitish Chaudhary and Ms. Meenal Duggal, Advocates, for DHC. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, Mr. Hardik Luthra and Mr. Alok Shukla, Advocates, for respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HONBLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI JUDGMENT REKHA PALLI, J1 The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by a General category candidate assailing his non-selection in the Delhi Higher Judicial Services. The petitioner was a cand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... do not support the petitioners' approach to this question at all. (emphasis supplied) thus, reliance placed by the learned single judge upon the stand taken by the mcd in ajay gandhi (supra) is misplaced.80. reference made by the learned single judge to the proposal sent to the additional commissioner (establishment) on 20.09.2010 for amendment of the regulations of ..... appellate authority. since the petitioner g.s. matharoo was a group a officer, he claimed that only the corporation was empowered to remove him. the petitioner placed reliance on ajay gandhi and another v. b. singh & ors, 2004 ii ad (sc) 169, wherein the mcd had also taken the stand that section 59(d) was subject to the regulations of 1959 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :29. h May, 2019 Date of decision :23. d October, 2019 + CS (OS) 27/2019 SWAMI RAMDEV & ANR. ...Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Sonali Dhir, Mr. Aadhar Nautiyal and Ms. Cauveri Birbal, Advocates (M:92051. 9664). versus FACEBOOK, INC. & ORS. .... Defendants Through: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Richa Srivastava, Mr. Aditya Nayar, Ms. Mishika Bajpai & Ms. Nayantara Narayan, Advocates, for D-1. Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mehtaab Singh, Mr. Prathishth Kaushal, Ms. Shruttima Ehersa & Ms. Sakshi Jhalani, Advocates for D-2&3 (M-8814048526) Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Gogia & Mr. Jithin M. George, Advocates for D-5 (M- 9971766556) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.I.A. 855/2019 JUDGMENT1 The Plaintiffs Swami Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. have filed the present suit against the Defendants- Faceb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... effect is the judgment of the apex court in vinitec electronics private limited (supra) more particularly paragraphs 11 and 12.65. the apex court in the case of mahatma gandhi 2007 (supra) ruled that the right of the purchaser to recover from the guarantor, the guaranteed amount shall not be effected or suspended by reasons of the fact ..... the conditions in the loi, but between the bank and the appellant the decision of the appellant as to the breach is absolute and binding. in the case of mahatma gandhi sahakra sakkare karkhane (supra) the apex court had laid down that a person in whose favour the o.m.p.(i) (comm.) 234/2019 page 13 of 66 ..... of law that a case of invocation of bg must be decided without advertence to the contract. reliance is placed on the judgments of the apex court as follows : (a) mahatma gandhi sahakra sakkare karkhane vs. national heavy engg. coop. ltd. and anr. (2007) 6 scc470 (b) gujarat maritime board vs. l&t infrastructure development projects ltd. & ors., (2016) .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC591
1. These appeals have been filed against Order-in-Original No. 3/95, dated 29-12-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi.Following are the particulars of the appellants :______________________________________________________________Appeal No. Name of the appellant Referred to asE/ 209/ 96- A M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. ITCE/210/96-A J.N. Sapru -E/211/96-A J. Narayan -E/288/96-A M/s. Asia Tobacco Ltd. ATCE/289/96-A M/s. Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette HDCF Factory Ltd.E/290/96-A M/s. Lakshmi Tobacco Co. LTCE/291/96-A M/s. Reliable Cigarettes RCTI and Tobacco IndustriesE/292/96-A M/s. Master Tobacco Co. MTCE/293/96 M/s. Crown Tobacco Co. CTCE/294/96-A R. Bhoothalingam 2. The particulars of demand of duty proposed in the show cause notice for the period 1-3-1983 to 28-2-1987 and demand confirmed and penalty imposed on the assessees are as follows :-_____________________________________________________________Concern Duty proposed Duty confirmed Penalty Penalty (in rupees) (in rupees) in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... not hubris; power is not petulance and prudence is not pusillanimity, especially when judges are themselves prospectors and mercy is a mark of strength, not whimper of weakness. christ and gandhi shall not be lost on the judges at a critical time when courts are on trial and the people ( we, the people of india ) pronounce the final verdict on all ..... . deepak khosla seeking, inter alia, early hearing of cm no.2392/2013 (application for clarification ). while hearing arguments in that behalf, he made a reference to dedh bench (i.e., hindi equivalent of one-and-ahalf bench) while describing the division bench consisting of sanjeev khanna, j., and one of us (r.v. easwar, j.,). in the order passed by this .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... of decision:27. h april, 2015 % + lpa no.733/2014 google inc. & ors. through: . .. appellants mr. gopal subramaniam and mr. ramji srinivasan, sr. advs. with mr. ravisekhar nair, mr. sameer gandhi, ms. hemangini dadwal, mr. arjun khera, ms. shivangi sukumar, ms. sara sundaram and mr. rishabh kapur, advs. versus competition commission of india & anr. through: .. respondents mr. pallav saxena with mr ..... . for r-2. and + w.p.(c) no.7084/2014 .. petitioners google inc. & ors. through: mr. gopal subramaniam and mr. ramji srinivasan, sr. advs. with mr. ravisekhar nair, mr. sameer gandhi, ms. hemangini dadwal, mr. arjun khera, ms. shivangi sukumar, ms. sara sundaram and mr. rishabh kapur, advs. versus competition commission of india & anr. through: .. respondents mr. pallav saxena with mr .....
Tag this Judgment!