Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: January 23, 2014 + CS(OS) No.2617/2010 MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLE PVT. LTD...... Plaintiff Through Mr.Aman Taneja, Advocate versus DHARA DAIRY FOODS CO. ..... Respondent Through Defendant is ex-parte CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The defendant is ex-parte. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, Mother Diary Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd, for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc. against the defendant.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is the registered proprietor of the well known trademark DHARA and has various registrations for the said mark under Class 29. The details of the said registrations in respect of the mark DHARA have been given in Para 13 of the plaint. Some of them are: registration in respect of DHARA Refined Vegetable Oil under class 29 bearing registration N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-29-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:29. h January, 2014 + CRL.A. 393/1998 SOHAN LAL @SURESH @ SODA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14th August, 1998 and 17th August, 1998 in Sessions Case No.82/1997 arising out of FIR No.484/1997 u/s 302/34 IPC registered with PS Seelampur whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.25000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 36 months. In case of deposit of fine, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is to be paid to the father of the deceased while the remaining amount shall go the State as cost of the proceedings.2. The facts and circumstances giving ris...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:21. 02.2014 CO.PET.95/2011 REVELL GMBH & CO. KG ..... Petitioner versus M/s FORE SQUARE RETAIL PRIVATE LTD. ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Ms Rekha Palli and Ms Punam Singh. For the Respondent : Mr Manik Dogra. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner company under Sections 433(e) and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, praying for winding up of the respondent company on the ground that the respondent company has failed and neglected to pay a sum of USD534696.20, due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner on account of supply of goods (Model Kits products, Paints Accessories, Airbrush, Metal and Slot Cars). The respondent disputes that any amount is due and payable to the petitioner. The respondent alleges that goods supplied by the petitioner were defective, hazardous and substandard and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-25-2014
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:- 25th February, 2014 + CRIMINAL APPEAL5621999 NAND LAL Through ..... Appellant Mr. Akshay Sapra, Advocate. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.Appellant Nand Lal by the impugned judgment dated 19 th April, 1999 has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) for murder of Rubi Kumar in the intervening night between 15th and 16th December, 1992 at A-260, Mukandpur Colony, Delhi. The conviction arises out of FIR No.486/1992, police station Samaipur Badli, which became subject matter of Session Case No.135/1994. The appellant was also charged under Section 376 IPC, but has been acquitted. State has not preferred any appeal against the said acquittal. By order of sentence dated 29th April, 1999, the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-. In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-26-2014
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:- 26th February, 2014 + CRIMINAL APPEAL5621999 NAND LAL Through ..... Appellant Mr. Akshay Sapra, Advocate. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.Appellant Nand Lal by the impugned judgment dated 19 th April, 1999 has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) for murder of Rubi Kumar in the intervening night between 15th and 16th December, 1992 at A-260, Mukandpur Colony, Delhi. The conviction arises out of FIR No.486/1992, police station Samaipur Badli, which became subject matter of Session Case No.135/1994. The appellant was also charged under Section 376 IPC, but has been acquitted. State has not preferred any appeal against the said acquittal. By order of sentence dated 29th April, 1999, the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-. In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-17-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17. h April, 2014 + CRL.L.P. 352/2012 STATE ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP with SI Vivek Yadav, PS S.J.Enclave. versus JEEWAN KUMAR PASWAN & ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate for Jeewan Kumar Paswan. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.Crl.M.A. 12502/2012 Delay in filing of the leave to appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 352/2012 Appellant-State has not been able to verify and positively ascertain whether respondent No.2 has expired. It is, however, stated that as per the information available and ascertained, respondent No.2 was a vagabond and resident of Nepal but no one knows his address in the said country. Orally it was stated that respondent No.2 has expired.2. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate, who has entered appearance on behalf of respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-29-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : March 21, 2014 DECIDED ON : April 29, 2014 + CRL.A.323/2012 ABDUL AZIZ Through : ..... Appellant Mr.R.P.S.Jaiswal, Advocate. versus STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The appellant-Abdul Aziz challenges the correctness and legality of a judgment dated 04.02.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 (North) in Sessions Case No.52/2011 arising out of FIR No.263/2006 under Section 395/412/120B IPC registered at police station Kotwali by which he was convicted under Section 412 IPC. By an order dated 09.02.2012, he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine `10,000/-.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as set up in the charge- sheet, was that on 04.06.2006 at about 3.15 p.m. a decoity took place at the office of the complainant-Sukhbir Sharan Aggarwal at 1994, Katra Lachu Singh, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The assailants decamped with cash `22/23 l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-28-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.154/2013 28th April, 2014 % KARTAR SINGH Through: ......Appellant Mr. Himanshu Dutt, Adv. VERSUS RAM ANUJ PANDEY Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This second appeal impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 4.2.2012 and the first appellate court dated 5.12.2012; by which the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for possession was decreed with respect to the suit land being a plot of 40 sq. yds in K.No.11/19, Village Jhuljhuli Extention, New Delhi-73.2. The respondent-plaintiff claimed possession of the suit plot on the ground that he had purchased rights of the same on the basis of general power of attorney registered before the sub-Registrar on 25.2.2002 by the appellant-defendant. Appellant-defendant had also executed a Will dated 25.2.2002 in favour of the respondent-plain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Apr-25-2014
DR. P. Jyothimani (Judicial Member): 1. The Appellant in the present appeal was the original complainant before the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) and the Respondent No. 3 before the Appellate Authority. He has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20.12.2013 under Section 31-B of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and Section 35-B of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974. 2. The Impugned order of the Appellate Authority was passed in the appeal filed by respondent no. 1, the project proponent, under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. By such appeal he challenged the order of the HSPCB dated 31.03.2013, in and by which the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) has refused to grant consent to operate the unit of the respondent no. 1 for the year 2013 and 2014 under bot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-28-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: July 28, 2014 + CS(OS) 2243/2014 STAR INDIA PVT LTD & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr.Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sidharth Chopra, Ms.Sneha Jain, Mr.Prateek Chadha and Ms.Savni Dutt, Advs. versus HANEETH UJWAL & ORS Through ..... Defendants None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) I.A. No.13873/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 13 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing the originals of the documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject to originals being produced at the time of admission/denial of the documents. The application is disposed of. I.A. No.13874/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiffs seeking exemption from filing the certified copies, clear copies, translations of documents and the left side margin. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject to just...
Tag this Judgment!