Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-10-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J.1. These are the applications by the plaintiff/applicant under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 and under Order 26 Rule 9 seeking interim injunction against Zee Telefilms Ltd from making, telecasting or broadcasting or in any other manner communicating to the public the television serial/cinematograph film titled `Time Bomb' and not to do anything without obtaining a license from the plaintiff and for directions to the defendants, their partners, servants, agents, representatives to hand over possession of the infringing copies and all other incriminating material including the original script and all plates for production of cinematograph film titled `Time Bomb' in a suit for permanent, I.A Nos. 4776, 4777/2005 in C.S (OS) 868/2005 Page 1 of 85 mandatory injunction and rendition of accounts for the alleged infringement of copyright of the plaintiff.2. The suit was initially filed against M/s.Zee Telefilms Ltd. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed an application be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-10-2012
Anil Kumar, J. 1. These are the applications by the plaintiff/applicant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and under Order 26 Rule 9 seeking interim injunction against Zee Telefilms Ltd from making, telecasting or broadcasting or in any other manner communicating to the public the television serial/cinematograph film titled `Time Bomb' and not to do anything without obtaining a license from the plaintiff and for directions to the defendants, their partners, servants, agents, representatives to hand over possession of the infringing copies and all other incriminating material including the original script and all plates for production of cinematograph film titled `Time Bomb' in a suit for permanent, mandatory injunction and rendition of accounts for the alleged infringement of copyright of the plaintiff. 2. The suit was initially filed against M/s.Zee Telefilms Ltd. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed an application being IA No.4822/2005 to implead Ms.Deepa Sahi, Mr.Ketan Meht...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-08-2012
Reported in : 2012(4)LLN666
1. By way of the present petition the Petitioner impugnes the award dated 1st May, 2002 whereby the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has directed reinstatement of Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 with 40% back wages and continuity of service. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the primary issue raised by the Petitioner that it was not an industry was virtually glossed over by the learned Trial Court and the Petitioner was held to be an industry though the Petitioner is doing charitable work and is wholly dependent on the grants and aids received from Government of India. Reliance is placed on Banglore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Ors. (1978) 2 SCC 213. The Petitioner/society is running mostly by voluntary workers who do not charge any money, though a honorarium of Rs. 1200/- per month is paid for their livelihood. The society is working for the upliftment of tribals and one of the major functions of the society is running crches for the children ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-14-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The present three petitions have been preferred by the petitioners KSL and Industries Ltd. (KSL), Jay Bharat Textile and Real Estate Ltd. (Jay Bharat) and Eskay K „n‟it (India) Ltd. (Eskay) under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to seek the following reliefs: (a) Stay of the letter dated September 14, 2010 issued by respondent, terminating the MOU dated November 14, 2008 entered into between each of the three petitioners and the respondent National Textile Corporation Ltd. (NTCL). (b) A direction to NTCL not to create any third party right/interest in, and not to dispose off any land machinery and/or any fixed assets of the 11 Textile Mills covered by each of the MOUs (5 covered by the MOU with KSL, 4 covered by the MOU with Eskay and 2 covered by the MOU with Jay Bharat) (c) Direct the NTCL to take all such steps that are necessary to preserve the value of the 11 textile Mills and to furnish a full and complete discharge of all i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-13-2012
A.K. Sikri, (Acting Chief Justice). 1. Army Wives Welfare Association (‘AWWF’ for brevity) is a voluntary and Non-Government Organization (NGO) established with an intention to carry out charity. It started a school for handicapped children of Army Personnel known as “Asha school”. Some funding is provided to this school by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India (appellant herein). In this behalf, the appellants have issued guidelines in the year, 1999 which stated that DD Division of the Ministry has been administering four NGO Schemes, viz., “Scheme to Promote Voluntary Action Persons with Disabilities” (‘scheme’ in short) since 1992-93 and in order to broaden the objective of the Scheme and to make it in consonance with the provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as „Disabilities Act’], all ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-02-2012
..... under section 308 ipc against other syndicate members.15. mr. ohri also referred to a full bench judgment of the maharashtra high court in state of maharashtra vs. jagan gagansingh nepali @ jagya & anr. in criminal appeal no. 20 and 407 of 2011 decided on 5th august, 2011 wherein it has been held as under:"34. it can, thus, clearly be seen .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-05-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1. These two appeals are being decided together as they are directed against the same judgment and order on the point of sentence. The judgment dated 11.11.2008 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge-01, South, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 203/2006 arising out of FIR 225/2003 registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarak Pur, under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 is under challenge in these appeals. 2. By virtue of the impugned judgment dated 11.11.2008, the appellants Suresh Pehlwan @ Suresh Basoya, Sushil Choudhary @ Sushil Pehlwan (appellants in Crl. A. No. 72/2009) and Dalip Kumar @ Gudar (appellant in Crl. A. No. 73/2009) have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC. Appellant Suresh Pehlwan and Sushil Choudhary have also been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Insofar as the accused Lekhraj is concerned, he was acquitted of the charges under Sections 120B/302/34 IPC. The present appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-05-2012
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:05. 11.2012 CRL. A 72/2009 SURESH PEHLWAN @ SURESH BASOYA AND ANR ... Appellants - versus STATE OF DELHI ... Respondent AND + CRL. A 73/2009 DALIP KUMAR @ GUDAR ... Appellant - versus THE STATE ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellants : Mr Ajay Verma For the Respondent : Ms Richa Kapur CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1.These two appeals are being decided together as they are directed against the same judgment and order on the point of sentence. The judgment dated 11.11.2008 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge-01, South, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 203/2006 arising out of FIR 225/2003 registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarak Pur, under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 is under challenge in these appeals.2. By virtue of the impugned judgment dated 11.11.200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-05-2012
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:05. 11.2012 CRL. A 72/2009 SURESH PEHLWAN @ SURESH BASOYA AND ANR ... Appellants - versus STATE OF DELHI ... Respondent AND + CRL. A 73/2009 DALIP KUMAR @ GUDAR ... Appellant - versus THE STATE ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellants : Mr Ajay Verma For the Respondent : Ms Richa Kapur CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1.These two appeals are being decided together as they are directed against the same judgment and order on the point of sentence. The judgment dated 11.11.2008 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge-01, South, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 203/2006 arising out of FIR 225/2003 registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarak Pur, under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 is under challenge in these appeals.2. By virtue of the impugned judgment dated 11.11.200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-22-2012
..... on 04.08.1996 javed khan pointed out room no. 106 in satyam hotel, pahar ganj and informed the police that on 14.05.1996 he alongwith his associate sonu nepali stayed there and kept then in the evening handed over the bag with explosives to wazid; javed khan also identified rajan arora to whom he had paid the room rent .....
Tag this Judgment!