Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-02-2019
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:02. 05.2019 + W.P.(C) 6468/2012 NARESH KUMAR SHARMA & ANR Through None. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.Nikhil Bhardwaj, Adv. for R-1. Dr.Harsh Mr.Siddharth Shukla, Adv. for R-3. Pathak, Adv. with CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek direction as under:-"i. The respondents to formulate guidelines/rules/procedures for effective functioning, implementation and convening of the functions, duties and obligation of the respondent No.2; ii.... RESPONDENTS to provide requisite infrastructure for training, preparing, boarding and lodging facilities to the athletes representing India in international events; iii. Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 to submit the report of the action WP (C) 6468/2012 Page 1 of 9 taken against the erring officials of the Respondent No.2 for committing the overt a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-06-2019
~ * + % 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 851/2017 Reserved on:4. h August, 2018 Pronounced on:6. h May, 2019 PRAVESH DIXIT @ TINDA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K. Singhal and Mr. Nishant Bhardwaj, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP for State with SI A. Negi, PS Dwarka South CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT The appellant Pravesh Dixit @ Tinda stands convicted, vide judgment dated 23rd February, 2017, under Sections 367 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, having been found guilty of subjecting a child, 17 years and 4 months of age (who would be referred to, hereinafter, as X), to penetrative sexual assault. Consequent thereto, the appellant has, vide subsequent order dated 27th April, 2017, been sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment (RI), for commission of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCS...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-07-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * % + CS(COMM) No.271/2016 & IA No.12596/2016 (u/O VII R-11 CPC) Date of decision:7. h May, 2019 SOFTWARE ONE INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... PLsAINTIFF Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sahu, Adv. Versus C&S ELECTRIC LTD. ...DEFENDANT Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Nancy Roy & Mr. Rupin Bahl, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW The plaintiff has sued the defendant for recovery of Rs.1,18,55,172/ pleading that: (i) the plaintiff is a software licensing company; (ii) the defendant placed a purchase order dated 27th June, 2011 on the plaintiff seeking delivery of various software licenses of Microsoft from the plaintiff, for a period of three years, on year 1, year 2 and year 3 basis; (iii) under the said purchase order, the defendant was liable to pay license fee of Rs.52,75,531/- for each of the three years and the plaintiff was to deliver to the defendant software licenses of Microsoft on yearly basis for a consecutive period of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-10-2019
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:29. h March, 2019 Date of decision:10. h May, 2019 SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD ..... Plaintiff CS (COMM) 622/2018 & I.A. 12663/2014 Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Devyati Nath and Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Advocates (M:98919. 9028). AJANTA PHARMA LTD ..... Defendant Through: Mr Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate, versus Mr. Jayant Mehta, Mr. Afzal B. Khan and Ms. Suhrita Majundar, Advocates (M:98818. 0037). CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J.1. Is the test for infringement and passing off for nutraceutical products the same as the test applicable for pharmaceuticals?.2. The dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the present case is in respect of two products used by patients of age related dimness of vision and diabetic retinopathy. They are sold under the trademarks GLOEYE and GLOTAB. Both are ocular medicines. Since they contain plant extracts, they are termed as nutraceuticals under Section 22...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-16-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:16. 05.2019 + W.P.(C) 1163/2017 and CM APPL. 38867/2017 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ........ Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS :Mr Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with Ms Archana Shanker, Mr Shrawan Chopra, Ms Prachi Agarwal, Mr Devinder Rawat, Mr Pundreek Dwivedi and Ms Ridhie Bajaj. :Mr Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr Waize Ali Noor and Ms Shruti Dutt for UOI. Mr Vishal Sudan and Ms Prachi Tiwari for R-3. Mr J.Sai Deepak, Mr Guru Narang and Mr Avinash K. Sharma, Advocates for R-5. Ms Bitika Sharma, Ms Mansee Teotia and Ms Lakshay Kaushik, Advocates for R-7. CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU VIBHU BAKHRU, J JUDGMENT1 The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 08.11.2016 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (hereafter the Controller), W.P.(C) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-27-2019
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 701/2017 % Judgment reserved on:20. h May, 2019 Judgment pronounced on:27. h May, 2019 MANNU STATE Through: Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate. ....Appellant Versus Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for State. ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J1 The present Appeal is instituted on behalf of the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 25.03.2017 and order on sentence dated 03.04.2017 passed by the Court of Special Judge (NDPS-01), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Session Case No.56203/2016 in FIR No.455/2012, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-2019
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:28. h May, 2019 CS(COMM) 3/2018, IA No.90/2018 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) & IA No.92/2018 (u/s 80(2) CPC) RAJ REWAL ..... PLAINTIFF Through: Mr. C.M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vedanta Varma, Ms. Nancy Roy, Mr. Rupin Bahl & Mr. Akhil Kumar Gola, Advs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... DEFENDANTS Versus Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saket Sikri, Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, Mr. Yuvraj, Ms. Sneh Suman & Mr. Neil Mason, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW The question for consideration is, whether an Architect, as author of 1. artistic work of architecture in the form of a building or structure having an artistic character or design and having a copyright therein, upon the owner of the land on which building is constructed choosing to demolish the said building to construct another building in its place, has a right to restrain the owner from doing so and if the building has been demolished, to demand compensation therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-2019
$~ * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement Reserved:11. hSeptember 2018 Judgement Pronounced:28. h May, 2019 + FAO(OS) 202/2017 M/S TEKNOW CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Mr.Karan Luthra and Ms.Malavika Lal, Advocates. versus BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pallav Kumar and Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J.1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 against the judgment dated 16.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside in part the Award of the Sole Arbitrator dated 30.04.2015 with regard to pendente lite interest. FAO(OS) 202/2017 Page 1 of 24 2. Some necessary facts, which are required ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-30-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved On:19. 03.2019 Judgment Pronounced On:30. 05.2019 CRL.A.1013/2018 MAHABIR MEHTO STATE versus . Appellant .... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Madhav Khurana and Ms. Trisha Mittal, Advocates : Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP with SI Sunder Singh, PS-Baba Haridas Nagar CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. The present appeal instituted under the provision of section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C) assails the judgment dated 27.04.2018 and the order on sentence dated 14.05.2018, rendered by the learned Additional Session Judge-01, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in Session Case No.440846/2016, title as State vs. CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 1 of 29 Mahabir Mehto, emanating from F.I.R No.216/2013 (hereinafter referred to as the subject FIR) under sectionsof the Indian Pena...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-31-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :16. 05.2019. Date of Decision :31. 05.2019 IN THE MATTER OF: + RC.REV. 72/2016 and CM APPL. 4199/2016 (Stay) RAJESHWAR DAYAL ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Mukul Kumar and Mr. P.D. Sharma, Advocates versus PREETI GUPTA ..... Respondent Through Mr. Ravish K. Goyal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.1. The present proceedings instituted under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act) assail the impugned order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the ACJ/CCJ/ARC, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in E-118/2013 whereby the application of the petitioner/tenant seeking leave to defend was dismissed and consequently an order of eviction of the petitioner/tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act was passed qua the tenanted premises i.e, shop on the ground floor of property bearing no.530, Chatta Hingamal, Chotta Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. R.C.Rev.72/...
Tag this Judgment!