Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 03, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: November10, 2014 % + CRL.A. 804/2014 SUNIL @ BABU Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.P.S.Pradhan, Advocate. versus STATE Represented by: + ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for the State with Inspector Yashpal Singh, Crime Branch and SI Gorav. Mr.Rajeev Nanda, Advocate for deceaseds father. CRL.A. 854/2014 VINOD @ VINODI Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Nandita Rao, Advocate. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for the State with Inspector Yashpal Singh, Crime Branch and SI Gorav. Mr.Rajeev Nanda, Advocate for deceaseds father. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Sunil @ Babu and Vinod @ Vinodi have been convicted for the offence of murder of Jitender vide impugned judgment dated March 26, 2014 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life.2. Learned counsels for the appellants assa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-05-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: December 02, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: December 05, 2014 % + CRL.A. 1048/2014 RAJU Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.K.Singhal, Adv. with appellant in person. Versus STATE Represented by: .... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with Insp.Rajesh Kumar, PS Swaroop Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Raju was charged for committing the murder of Smt.Shashi Rai and firing upon Ajay thus causing bullet injuries on his person in furtherance of common intention with one A a juvenile. Vide impugned judgment dated July 16, 2014 the learned Trial Court has convicted Raju for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, 307/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine in sum of `50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine in sum of `50,000/- for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-08-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: October 10, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: December 08, 2014 % + CRL.A. 1065/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for the State with SI Dalip Kumar, Spl.Cell/NDR. versus BASHIR AHMED PONNU & ORS ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Dinesh Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. The State is aggrieved by the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the respondents Bashir Ahmed Ponnu, Fayaz Ahmed Lone, Abdul Majeed Baba and Shahid Gafoor for the offences punishable under Section 120B/121/121-A/122/123 IPC & Section 17/18/20/21/23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (in short the UAP Act), acquitting Bashir Ahmed for offence punishable under Section 489(B)/489 (C) of IPC and Shahid Gafoor for offences punishable under Section 186/353/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-08-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:08. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 6387/2012 & CM No.17030/2012 MALIK TANNING INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 4754/2014 & CM94672014 M/S. KAVISH IMPEX PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Ms Shikha Sapra for petitioner in W.P.(C) 4754/2014. Mr Naveen Malhotra for petitioner in W.P.(C) 6387/2012. For the Respondents : Mr Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI in W.P.(C) 6387/2012. Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr Amrit Singh for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) 4754/2014. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioners impugn policy circular No.42 (RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 21.10.2011 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (hereafter referred to as impugned circular) inasmuch as it curtails the benefit available under Focus Product Scheme in respect of Techn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-08-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:08. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 6387/2012 & CM No.17030/2012 MALIK TANNING INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 4754/2014 & CM94672014 M/S. KAVISH IMPEX PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Ms Shikha Sapra for petitioner in W.P.(C) 4754/2014. Mr Naveen Malhotra for petitioner in W.P.(C) 6387/2012. For the Respondents : Mr Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI in W.P.(C) 6387/2012. Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr Amrit Singh for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) 4754/2014. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioners impugn policy circular No.42 (RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 21.10.2011 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (hereafter referred to as impugned circular) inasmuch as it curtails the benefit available under Focus Product Scheme in respect of Techn...
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!