Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-14-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : August 12, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on : August 14, 2014 + CRL.A. 1326/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.8563/2014 SURESH @ MUCCHAD Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Anita Abraham, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for the State with SI Ajay Singh P.S.Darya Ganj CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Suresh @ Muchhad has been held guilty for having murdered Ram Babu in the late evening of April 15, 2011 at a Tikona park (Triangular Park) adjoining Sulabh Shochalaya near gate No.3 of Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital. The learned Trial Judge has believed Mohd. Izhar PW-1 and Mohd.Alam PW-3 as truthful eye witnesses. The knife Ex.P-1 opined by Dr.Kulbhushan PW-11 who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Ram Babu as the one from which injuries could be caused to the deceased, which knife was recovered from the personal search ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: October 15, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: November 03, 2014 % + CRL.A.781/2011 AFZAL SHA @ SURAJ ALI ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate with Ms.Neha Singh, Ms.Pankhuri Mehndiratta, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Inspector Anil Kumar Pandey, PS Kashmere Gate CRL.A. 784/2011 AJAY Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate with Ms.Neha Singh, Ms.Pankhuri Mehndiratta, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Inspector Anil Kumar Pandey, PS Kashmere Gate CRL.A. 1270/2013 SONU Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: CRL.A.No.781/2011 & conn.matters ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Inspector Anil Kumar Pandey, PS Page 1 of 11 Kashmere Gate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: October 15, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: November 03, 2014 % + CRL.A.781/2011 AFZAL SHA @ SURAJ ALI ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate with Ms.Neha Singh, Ms.Pankhuri Mehndiratta, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Inspector Anil Kumar Pandey, PS Kashmere Gate CRL.A. 784/2011 AJAY Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate with Ms.Neha Singh, Ms.Pankhuri Mehndiratta, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Inspector Anil Kumar Pandey, PS Kashmere Gate CRL.A. 1270/2013 SONU Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: CRL.A.No.781/2011 & conn.matters ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Inspector Anil Kumar Pandey, PS Page 1 of 11 Kashmere Gate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: October 15, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: November 03, 2014 % + CRL.A.781/2011 AFZAL SHA @ SURAJ ALI ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate with Ms.Neha Singh, Ms.Pankhuri Mehndiratta, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Inspector Anil Kumar Pandey, PS Kashmere Gate CRL.A. 784/2011 AJAY Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate with Ms.Neha Singh, Ms.Pankhuri Mehndiratta, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Inspector Anil Kumar Pandey, PS Kashmere Gate CRL.A. 1270/2013 SONU Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: CRL.A.No.781/2011 & conn.matters ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Inspector Anil Kumar Pandey, PS Page 1 of 11 Kashmere Gate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-13-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : September 11, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on : October 13, 2014 + FAO(OS) 389/2014 M/S. SOUTH INDIA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms.Pratibha M.Singh, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Saurabh S.Sinha, Ms.Jaya Manddia and Mr.Sanchit Aggarwal, Advocates versus GENERAL MILLS MARKETING INC. & ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Anuradha Salhotra, Advocate with Mr.Sumit Wadhwa and Mr.Tushar A.John, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Appellant the defendant in the suit, assails the order dated July 23, 2014, allowing the application filed by the respondent - plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure granting an interim injunction against the appellant restraining the appellant from using the mark DDAAZS or any other mark deceptively similar to that of the respondent - plaintiffs trade mark HAAGEN-DAZ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-26-2014
$~13. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2185/2011 % Judgment dated 26.05.2014 ATLANTIC INDUSTRIES & ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through : Mr.C.M. Lall, Ms.Nancy Roy and Mr.Anuj Nair, Advs. versus SIMRON FOOD PROCESSORS (P) LTD ..... Defendant Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for injunction and damages for infringement of registered trademark, passing off and for infringement of copyright. Summons were issued in the suit on 08.09.2011. An interim injunction was granted against the defendant on 08.09.2011. Counsel for the defendant entered appearance on 11.11.2011.2. In the order dated 31.05.2012, defendant submitted that the defendant has already stopped using the trademark of plaintiffs and has no intention to use the same in future. Further, parties also sought time to file an application for recording the compromise. However, the counsel for the defendant was not able to get the compromise applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-25-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:25. h March, 2014 % + CS(OS) 3137/2012 PFIZER PRODUCTS, INC THROUGH: Mr.Sahil Sethi, Advocate ..Plaintiff VERSUS R.K. SINGH & ANR THROUGH: None ..Defendants CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI G.S. SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, rendition of accounts, delivery up and damages. Summons were issued in the suit on 19.10.2012, 02.01.2013, 25.02.2013 and on 19.07.2013. The plaintiff is aggrieved by use of the mark VIHAGRA by defendants. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the defendants and they were accordingly proceeded ex parte on 15.01.2014.2. The plaintiff has filed affidavit by way of evidence of Mr. Samir Kazi (PW1), which is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A. PW1 has deposed that he holds Power of Attorney from plaintiff in his favour and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1.3. Mr. Samir Kazi, PW1 has deposed tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :25. h March, 2014 Date of Decision:28. h May, 2014 % + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.615/2011 ASIF @ SHABBU STATE ..... Appellant Through Mr. R.S. Dakha and Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocates. versus ..... Respondent Through Mr. RajatKatyal, APP with Inspector Manoj Pant, SHO Gandhi Nagar. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.688/2011 NADEEM @ CHICKNA ..... Appellant Through Mr. Gurbaksh Singh and Ms. RichaSamhita, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. RajatKatyal, APP with Inspector Manoj Pant, SHO Gandhi Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J: The impugned judgment dated 31st March, 2011 convicts Asif @ Shabbu and Nadeem @ Chikna under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC, for short) and Section 392 read with Section 397/34 IPC.2. By order on sentence dated 6th April, 2011, the two appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-04-2014
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 510/2014 & CM No.1024/2014 Date of Decision:4. h February, 2014 YOGENDRA NATH Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Prabodh Kumar, Adv. versus COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN ..... Respondent Through Mr. S. Rajappa, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) 1. The petitioner before us assails the order dated 28.05.2013 passed in O.A. No.4605/2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby the order dated 07.01.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan under Article 81(b) of the Education Code, terminating the services of the petitioner and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 21.07.2010 were sustained.2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are in narrow compass. The petitioner was employed by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) as a post graduate teacher (English) and at the relevant time, posted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-13-2014
$~16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision :13. h May, 2014 % + CS(OS) 253/2012 JOCKEY INTERNATIONAL INC AND ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through : Mr.Nischal Anand, Adv. versus R CHANDRA MOHAN AND ORS ..... Defendants Through : Mr.Jaspreet Singh, Adv. for D-1 to D-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for infringement of trademark, passing off, dilution, tarnishment, unfair competition, damages and rendition of accounts. Summons were issued in the suit on 01.02.2012. On an application for appointment of Local Commissioner moved by the plaintiffs, two Local Commissioners were appointed in the matter. Summons were issued to defendant No.6 on several dates and was finally served through publication. Despite service none appeared for defendant No.6, consequently defendant No.6 was proceeded ex parte on 20.03.2014.2. On 06.05.2014, plaintiffs and defendants No.4, 5 and 7 filed application under Order 23 ...
Tag this Judgment!