Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-24-2019
$~19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:24. h January, 2019 + CRL.M.C. 2712/2016 STATE Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP ........ Petitioner for the State with SI Nepal Singh, PS CR Park. versus SANJAY KUMAR TIWARI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA Through: Respondent in person. ..... Respondent ORDER (ORAL) 1. The first information report (FIR) No.76/2007 of the subject case was registered on the compliant of Phool Singh, a delivery-man, engaged by a firm named and styled as Kalkaji Gas Service, the duties entrusted to him being to take gas cylinders from the godown of his employer in a three wheeler scooter (TSR) and deliver the same to the respective consumers, as per instructions.2. It is alleged that, on 16.03.2007, he having carried twenty-two gas cylinders from the godown of his employer, had reached near house No.1520 in C.R. Park, New Delhi at about 1:45 p.m., he was accosted by four persons who had come to the place in an Indica car bearing registration N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-15-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. (COMM) 32/2019 & IA9782019 Reserved on:22. 01.2019 Date of decision :15. 02.2019 AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General with Mr.Raghavender Shankar, Mr.Karan Lahiri, Ms.Kanu Agarwal and Mr.Adit Khorana, Advs. versus MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr.P.Chidambaram Sr.Adv. with Mr.Ankur Chawla, Ms.Kanika Singh, Mr.R.K. Mohit Gupta, Ms.Pallavi Langar and Ms.Palak Vashist, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA1 This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the Arbitral Award dated 23.09.2018 passed unanimously by a three member Arbitral Tribunal.2. The dispute between the parties, though required reference of the Arbitral Tribunal and of this Court to various documents exchanged between the parties and meetings held by them for a period rangin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-04-2019
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:4. h February, 2019 Decided on:4. h April, 2019 CRL.A. 990/2018 SHAMSHAD @ MURAPPAN & ORS. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Avinash Nandan Sharma, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 By the present appeal, Shamshad @ Murappan, Akram and Shahrukh @ Sharup Khan challenge the impugned judgment dated 5th July, 2018 convicting them for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part-II and 34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 7th July, 2018 directing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period six months for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II/34 IPC.2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellants have been convicted on the statement of the sole eye- witn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-15-2019
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :-"15.04.2019 + W.P.(C) 3901/2019 BAL KISHAN Through: Mr.Ajesh Luthra, Adv. ........ Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. ....... RESPONDENTS Through: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Mr.N.K. Singh & Ms.Ankita Ahuja Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI VIPIN SANGHI, J (ORAL) C.M. No.17688/2019 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 3901/2019 1. The petitioner assails the order dated 03.01.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in OA No.1936/2013. The Tribunal has dismissed the said original application by the impugned order. The petitioner had preferred the said original application to assail the disciplinary action taken against him by the respondents on the premise that on the same charge, he had been proceeded in a criminal case wherein he had been acquitted. The acquittal of the petitioner had taken place on ac...
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 : Jul-02-2019
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:2. d July, 2019 LPA8652015 and C.M. Appl. No.28936/2015 (for stay) UNION BANK OF INDIA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. O.P. Gaggar, Advocate. versus S.K. DHAWAN & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Jaspreet Singh Rai and Mr. Rohit Napal, Advocates for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH JUDGEMENT JYOTI SINGH, J.(ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 4.9.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 8216/2002 whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed the report of the Inquiry Officer, penalty order, appellate order as well as the order passed in the review filed by the respondent.2. Brief facts necessary for the present appeal are that the respondent was appointed as a clerk on 1.3.1966 in the appellant-Bank and during the course of his service earned several promotions. Between the period LPA8652015 Page 1 of 17 16.5.1996 and 20.2.1998 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-19-2019
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h July, 2019 + CS(COMM) 157/2017 & I.A. 10119/2014 THERMAX LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. N.K. Bhardwaj & Mr. Bikash Ghorai, Advocates (M-9810147174) versus THERMAX ENGINEERS PVT LTD Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ..... Defendant Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) 1. The Plaintiff Thermax Limited has filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark and trade name, passing off, etc. in respect of its trade name THERMAX. The case of the Plaintiff is that it had coined and adopted the mark THERMAX in 1974 and the same is being used as a trademark, house mark and is also a distinctive and prominent mark of its corporate name. The changes in the constitution of the company Thermax Ltd, from Thermax India Pvt. Ltd leading up to it becoming a listed company on 9th January, 1995, has been explained in paragraph 4 of the plaint.2. The mark THERMAX is also a registered t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-29-2019
$~ 23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:-"29th August, 2019 RSA392019 & CM Nos. 22009/2019 & 8525/2019 PREM CHAND ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Y.S. Panwar, Adv. versus RAMBHOLI DEVI @ RAM BHOOLI DEVI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Dwapayan Gupta with Ms. Shikha Goyal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) + 1. The respondent (decree holder) had instituted Civil Suit (7804/2016) against the appellant (judgment debtor) on 05.09.2013 praying for a decree for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits (damages) in respect of premises described as a shop on the ground floor of property bearing No.592/22-B, Nakul Gali, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi- 110032 (herein after referred to as suit shop).2. The decree holder claimed and the judgment debtor admitted that she was landlady in respect of the suit shop, he being a tenant therein, the tenancy having been created by a rent deed dated 01.07.2003 which was proved at the trial as Ex. P7. The ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-08-2019
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:10. h August, 2017 Decided on:8. h January, 2019 CS(OS) 205/2009 RODERICK JOHN ANDREW MACKENZIE..... Plaintiff Represented by: Mr.Kirti S. Javali and Ms.Nikita C. Jain, Advocates. Versus HIMALAYAN HELI SERVICES PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant Represented by: Mr. Vivek Malik and Mr.Mukul Thakur, Advocates. + Crl. M.A. No.5011/2009 in CS(OS) 210/2009 HIMACHAL HELICOPTER SKIING PTY LTD...... Plaintiff Represented by: Mr. Kirti S. Javali, Advocate. versus HIMALAYAN HELI SERVICES PVT. LTD...... Defendant Represented by: Mr.Vivek Malik and Mr.Mukul Thakur, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie, the plaintiff in CS(OS) No.205/2009 filed the suit inter alia seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants their employees, servants, agents etc. from using or otherwise copying, selling, offering for sale, counterfeit/unlicensed versions of the plaintiffs copyright in his artistic work HIMLAYAN ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-08-2019
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:10. h August, 2017 Decided on:8. h January, 2019 CS(OS) 205/2009 RODERICK JOHN ANDREW MACKENZIE..... Plaintiff Represented by: Mr.Kirti S. Javali and Ms.Nikita C. Jain, Advocates. Versus HIMALAYAN HELI SERVICES PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant Represented by: Mr. Vivek Malik and Mr.Mukul Thakur, Advocates. + Crl. M.A. No.5011/2009 in CS(OS) 210/2009 HIMACHAL HELICOPTER SKIING PTY LTD...... Plaintiff Represented by: Mr. Kirti S. Javali, Advocate. versus HIMALAYAN HELI SERVICES PVT. LTD...... Defendant Represented by: Mr.Vivek Malik and Mr.Mukul Thakur, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie, the plaintiff in CS(OS) No.205/2009 filed the suit inter alia seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants their employees, servants, agents etc. from using or otherwise copying, selling, offering for sale, counterfeit/unlicensed versions of the plaintiffs copyright in his artistic work HIMLAYAN ...
Tag this Judgment!