Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-13-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + DEATH SENTENCE REFERENCE NO.6/2013 STATE THROUGH REFERENCE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms. Swati Goswami and Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocates. versus RAM SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocate for Akshay Kumar and Vinay Sharma. Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate for Mukesh and Pawan Kumar Gupta. + CRL. APP. NO.1398/2013 PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA Through: versus STATE Through: + ..... Appellant Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. ..... Respondent Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms. Swati Goswami and Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocates. CRL. APP. NO.1399/2013 MUKESH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms. Swati Goswami and Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocates. DEATH SENTENCE REFERENCE NO.6/2013, + CRL. APP. NO.1414/2013 VINAY SHARMA AND AN...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-13-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : October 07, 2013 DECIDED ON : March 13, 2014 + CRL.A. 358/2006 P.P.SINGH Through : ..... Appellant Mr.R.N.Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Puneet Mittal, Mr.Ankit Goyal, Mr.Ankur Aggarwal & Mr.Nitin Sharma, Advocates. Versus C.B.I. Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Manoj Ohri, Spl.P.P. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. legality Dr.P.P.Singh (Prem Pal Singh-the appellant) challenges the and correctness of a judgment dated 06.05.2006 in R.C.No.79(A)/96/CBI/ACB/N.Delhi, CC No.133/01 of learned Special Judge, Delhi by which he was held guilty under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short PC Act). By an order on sentence dated 08.05.2006, he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine `5,000/- under Section 7 and rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine `7,000/- under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act. Both the substantive sentences were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-19-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:19. h March, 2014 + CRL.A. 923/2011 ARVIND KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Dimple Vivek, Advocate versus STATE + Through: ..... Respondent Ms.Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor Through: ..... Appellant Sh. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Advocate CRL.A. 927/2011 ROHIT TYAGI versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms.Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment dated 2 nd May, 2011 and order on sentence dated 7th May, 2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, North, Delhi in Sessions Case No.78/2010 arising out of FIR No.111/2009, PS Timarpur whereby both the appellants were convicted u/s 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and were directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lac each as fine, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for thr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.476/1998 Reserved on:28. h February, 2014 Date of Decision:3. d April, 2014 % SHANKAR LAL@SHANKAR Through ..... Appellant Mr. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate. Versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Additional Public Prosecutor. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J: Shankar Lal @ Shankar by the impugned judgment dated 30th September, 1998 stands convicted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder of his uncle Mukesh Kumar. Said Mukesh Kumar was son of Mishri Lal from his second wife, whereas the appellant herein is son of Rohtas, who was born from the first wife of Mishri Lal. By order on sentence dated 6th October, 1998, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which, he has to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.2. The main contention or plea raised in the appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :25.04.2014 + I.A. No.23086/2012 in CS(OS) No.3534/2012 ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. Through Mr.Manav Kumar, Advocate versus RAJ KUMAR PRASAD & ORS. Through ....Plaintiff ....Defendants Mr.Mohan Vidhani, Mr.Rahul Vidhani and Mr.Arun K.Jain, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.I.A. No.23086/2012 1. The present application is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking injunction to restrain the defendants etc. from manufacturing or offering for sale medicinal or pharmaceutical preparations under the trademark AMAFORTEN or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trademark ANAFORTAN. Other connected reliefs are also sought for. The accompanying plaint is filed by the plaintiff stating that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, USA which was founded in the year 1888. The trademark ANAFORTAN is stated to be an invented mark having no dictionary meaning. It is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-29-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: April 29, 2014 + CRL.A. 512/2000 MANNU Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Nidhi Raman, Amicus Curiae Versus THE STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J1 By this appeal filed under section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2000 and order on sentence dated 30.05.2000 whereby the Appellant Mannu was convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, further to pay fine of Rs.10000 and in case of default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.2. The facts germane to the case of the prosecution are that PW-3 H.C Chander Bhan while on patro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on : Mar-07-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Complainant Sh. Anil Khanna has filed this complaint against the OP for return of Rs.8,01,000/- received from the complainant by the respondent for providing agreed services but committed gross deficiency of service, compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for mental agony, pain and harassment etc. and litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. 2) The marriage ceremony of complainants daughter was scheduled to be solemnized on 06.05.2011 following which the complainant decided to engage the services of respondent company which represented to have immense market reputation in providing works of painting, props, accessories, floral, fabric and linen and other related works including generators and lighting. The respondent promised to make various wedding functions such as Bhajan Sandhya (on 29.04.2011), Sagan (on 04.05.2011) Mehndi/Ladies Sangeet (on 05.05.2011) and finally wedding ceremony on 06.05.2011, a resounding success and memorable. Accordingly Mr. Vikas Gututi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-2014
D.N. Panda, J. 1. Consequent upon receipt of an intelligence by DRI from China on 19.09.2005 through the consulate General of India, Hong Kong that one M/s Vikas Overseas, B-6, Arya Nagar Society, Patparganj, Delhi having IEC No. 0592009335 had exported Ketamine from India in the guise of Alfa Olefin Sulphonate (AOS) and 1010 Kgs of Ketamine was seized by Chinese Bureau of Narcotics Control, DRI investigated into the export made by Shipping Bill No. 1494427 dated 06.08.2005 backed by Invoice No. 465/2005-06 dated 04.08.2005 covering export of 17,500 kgs of Alfa Olefin Sulphanate (AOS) to a Chinese buyer viz., M/s Yantai High Link Import and Export Co. Ltd., 47, X inanhe Road, Yantai, China, by M/s Vikas Overseas in India. 2. According to the outcome of investigation, there was an allegation against Shri Devinder Pramod and Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta that they had exported Ketamine in terms of 3 (three) Shipping Bills No. 1494427 dated 06.08.2005 1435176 dated 02.11.2004, 1470670 dated 29....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-01-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:1. t July, 2014 % + CS(OS) 2589/2013 M/S ALLIED BLENDERS & DISTILLERS PVT. LTD.....Plaintiff Through: Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina and Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Shrawan Chopra & Ms. T. Saukshmya, Advs. Versus SHREE NATH HERITAGE LIQUOR PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sumit Rajput, Ms. Aastha Jain, Mr. Sarfaraz Ahmad and Mr. Rajul Jain, Advs. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.IA No.20759/2013 (of the plaintiff u/O XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC) 1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling, distributing, advertising or dealing in alcoholic beverages especially Indian made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) or goods of any description bearing the trade mark Collectors Choice or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark Officers Choice and amounting to infringement of the plaintiffs registered trade m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-29-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:29. h September, 2014 % + FAO (OS) No.205/2013 MINU CHIBBER & ORS. Through: .. Appellants Mr. D.P. Singh with Ms. Sonam Gupta, Mr. Rajkiran Vats, Mr. Salil Bhattacharya & Mr. R.P. Vyas, Advs. Versus LT. COL. (RETD.) S.S. CHIBBER .. Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Goel & Ms. Gausia Shah, Advs. CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 This appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 impugns the order dated 15th March, 2013 (of the learned Single Judge of this Court exercising Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in CS(OS) No.2521/2010 filed by the respondent / plaintiff) of dismissal of IA No.7092/2011 filed by the appellants / defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.2. Notice of the appeal was issued and vide ex parte ad-interim order dated 22nd April, 2013 which continues to be in force, the proceedings in the suit before the learned Single Judge were stayed. ...
Tag this Judgment!