Court : Delhi
..... machhi singh meticulously applied, the only justifiable sentence would be life imprisonment and not death sentence as imposed by the learned trial court. the following observations of m.k. gandhi, father of the nation made over 40 years ago in the harijan (march 19, 1937) were relied on: i do regard death sentence as contrary to ahinsa. only ..... has made her vulnerable, her place and role in the growth of society has made her command utmost respect. these characteristics of a woman have been depicted by great hindi poet jai shankar prasad in his epic kamayani as : yeh aaj samajh to paayi hoon, main durbalta mein nari hoon, avyay ki sunder komalta, lekar main sabse haari ..... treated in custody but he replied that he has no complaint in this regard. the learned sessions judge noted that questions to accused mukesh had been put in hindi language to make him understand as to why he should answer them. the statement of accused mukesh was also separately recorded in this regard. it may be relevant .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on :March 21, 2014 I.A. No.8856/2013 & I.A. No.13853/2013 in CS(OS) 1029/2013 MIND GYM LTD Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Shantanu Sood, Adv. with Mr.Vaibhav Vutts & Ms.Aamna Hasan, Advs. versus MINDGYM KIDS LIBRARY PVT LTD ..... Defendant Through Mr.R.K.Aggarwal, Adv. with Ms.Parul Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, unfair competition, delivery up, recovery of damages etc. against the defendant. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 being I.A.No.8856/2013.2. The suit alongwith said interim application was listed before court on 24th May, 2013. After hearing, detailed ex-parte order was passed against the defendant restraining it from infringing and/or passing off the plaintiffs rights by using the trade mark MINDGYM ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
..... certificate register was searched out pertaining to khariya caste and no such register is maintained / available in this office. the caste certificate no.136 dated 12.07.1985 of shri mahatma mehto s/o shri perdeshi mehto r/o village pandeypur, police office and letter no.c/864/13 dated 19.06.2013 which was shown to be issued from saran .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:13. 08.2014 WP(C) 4653/2013 N GOPALASWAMI & ORS ... Petitioners versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondent No.1 For the Respondent No.2 : Mr Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr Prashant Bhushan and Mr Pranav Sachdeva : Mr G. E. Vahanvati, AG with Mr Paras Kuhad and Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr Jatan Singh, Mr Sumeet Pushkarna, Gaurav Sharma, Mr Soayib Qureshi, Mr Kartikey Mahajan, Mr Devdutt Kamat, Mr Anoopam Prasad, Ms Tara Narula, Mr Nizam Pasha and Ms Sania Husaini : Mr Amit Sibal with Mr Amrinder Singh AND + WP(C) 4619/2013 MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE ... Petitioner versus THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PRIME MINISTER OFFICE AND OTHERS ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Petitioner-in-person with Ms Suman For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr Paras Kuhad and Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASGs with Mr Jatan Singh, Mr Sume...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:13. 08.2014 WP(C) 4653/2013 N GOPALASWAMI & ORS ... Petitioners versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondent No.1 For the Respondent No.2 : Mr Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr Prashant Bhushan and Mr Pranav Sachdeva : Mr G. E. Vahanvati, AG with Mr Paras Kuhad and Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr Jatan Singh, Mr Sumeet Pushkarna, Gaurav Sharma, Mr Soayib Qureshi, Mr Kartikey Mahajan, Mr Devdutt Kamat, Mr Anoopam Prasad, Ms Tara Narula, Mr Nizam Pasha and Ms Sania Husaini : Mr Amit Sibal with Mr Amrinder Singh AND + WP(C) 4619/2013 MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE ... Petitioner versus THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PRIME MINISTER OFFICE AND OTHERS ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Petitioner-in-person with Ms Suman For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr Paras Kuhad and Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASGs with Mr Jatan Singh, Mr Sume...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... meet such men, (ch. xi) and must be triggered against them. in this case, the learned judge to his cost realised what george bernard shaw remarked on the assassination of mahatma gandhi it is dangerous to be too good. 20. in the pronouncement of the supreme court reported at 2005 (7) scc510popat and kotecha property v. state bank of india staff association .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... meet such men, (ch. xi) and must be triggered against them. in this case, the learned judge to his cost realised what george bernard shaw remarked on the assassination of mahatma gandhi it is dangerous to be too good. (underlining by us) 8. in 2005 (7) scc510popat and kotecha property v. state bank of india staff association, the supreme court has clearly ..... in the opinion of the court is doomed to fail would not further be allowed to be used as a device to harass a litigant. (see azhar hussain v. rajiv gandhi 1986 supp scc315scc at pp. 324-35.) (underlining by us) 52. we may also refer to the observations of the supreme court in para 20 of the pronouncement reported in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:17. h November, 2014 + W.P.(C) 1000/2013 & CM Nos.16423/2013 & 3505/2014 SHRI AITA RAM Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sarvajeet Kumar Thakur, Advocate. Versus HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD. Represented by: ..... Respondent Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Meghna Mishra and Mr. Nakul Sachdeva, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.W.P.(C) 1000/2013 1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the Executing Court, whereby the execution petition was dismissed by recording that since the award dated 23.01.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal is silent regarding back wages, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the learned Tribunal has also granted back wages to the decree holders, therefore, decree cannot be executed regarding the back wages as prayed.2. It is pertinent to me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:17. h November, 2014 + W.P.(C) 1000/2013 & CM Nos.16423/2013 & 3505/2014 SHRI AITA RAM Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sarvajeet Kumar Thakur, Advocate. Versus HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD. Represented by: ..... Respondent Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Meghna Mishra and Mr. Nakul Sachdeva, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.W.P.(C) 1000/2013 1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the Executing Court, whereby the execution petition was dismissed by recording that since the award dated 23.01.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal is silent regarding back wages, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the learned Tribunal has also granted back wages to the decree holders, therefore, decree cannot be executed regarding the back wages as prayed.2. It is pertinent to me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:17. h November, 2014 + W.P.(C) 1000/2013 & CM Nos.16423/2013 & 3505/2014 SHRI AITA RAM Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sarvajeet Kumar Thakur, Advocate. Versus HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD. Represented by: ..... Respondent Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Meghna Mishra and Mr. Nakul Sachdeva, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.W.P.(C) 1000/2013 1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the Executing Court, whereby the execution petition was dismissed by recording that since the award dated 23.01.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal is silent regarding back wages, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the learned Tribunal has also granted back wages to the decree holders, therefore, decree cannot be executed regarding the back wages as prayed.2. It is pertinent to me...
Tag this Judgment!