Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-31-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :13. h MAY, 2013 DECIDED ON :31. t MAY, 2013 + CRL.A. 1037/2012 & CRL.M.B.Nos.285/2013 & 1633/2012 BAIJ NATH MITTAL Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Rebecca M.John, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Kushdeep Gaur & Mr.Harsh Bora, Advocates. versus STATE THR.C.B.I. Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Spl.P.P. AND + CRL.A. 1090/2012 & CRL.M.B.1701/2012 MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Vishal Gosain, Advocate with Mr.Kushdeep Gaur & Mr.Harsh Bora, Advocates. versus STATE THR.CBI Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Spl.P.P. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.CRL.M.B.Nos.285/2013 & 1633/2012 in CRL.A.1037/2012 & CRL.M.B.1701/2012 in CRL.A.1090/2012 1. The appellants- Baij Nath Mittal and Mukesh Kumar Gupta seek suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. I have heard the counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.P.P. Apparently, allegations against the appellants are very serious whereby they allegedly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-02-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 941/2010 SURESH @ BONA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate along with the appellant (in judicial custody) versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP CRL.A. 1211/2010 VIKAS @ SUNIL Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocate along with the appellant (in judicial custody) versus STATE Through: % ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP Date of Decision: July 02, 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. Suresh @ Bona & Vikas @ Sunil seek to challenge the impugned order dated 30th January, 2010 and 6th February, 2010 whereby both the appellants were convicted for offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.15,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.2. The factual matrix of the case is:- 3. On 17th September, 2007 on receipt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:29. 04.2013 Pronounced on:04. 07.2013 + RFA (OS) 116/2011, C.M. APPL. 4178/2012 M/S. SILICON GRAPHICS SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Sh. Rajiv Tyagi, Advocate. Versus NIDAS ESTATES PRIVATE LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Sh. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Mannmohit. K. Puri, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT % FACTS 1 The present appeal arises against the decree passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 1661/2003 and CS(OS) 2108/2011 for the recovery of Rs. 45,23,414/-.2. The appellant and respondent, both private limited companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 entered into a license agreement dated 01.09.1995 in respect of premises bearing No 305A and 305B, Embassy Square, 148 Infantry Road, RFA(OS)116/2011, C.M. APPL.4178/2012 Page 1 Bangalore (suit premises). The said premises were licensed by the respondent to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Jul-12-2013
The petitioner has come up before this court against the order of dismissal passed by the Summary Court Martial dated 13.08.2011. It appears that the petitioner had filed a statutory complaint against this order before the Chief of Army Staff under section 164 (2) of the Army Act. The statutory complaint has been disposed of by the Army Chief of Staff rejecting the petition. However, the sentence of dismissal has been converted into an order of discharge. Said order has been produced by the learned counsel for the respondent today. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the petition certain facts need to be noted herein. 2. The petitioner was enrolled on 27.07.2002 as Sepoy in 64 Assault Engineer regiment, Indian Army and was posted at different places. He was attached to head quarter central command, Lucknow as draftsman. It appears that Patna Police got information that Mr. Sudhanshu Sudhakar , who had been dismissed from the Army, was proceeding to Nepal with secret info...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 403/1997 Judgment delivered on:12. 07.2013 RANDHIR SINGH & ORS. Through: ..... Appellants Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr. Adv. with Mr. M.L. Yadav, Adv. Versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP with Inspector Satyavirjaaula, P.S. Ashok Vihar CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR % JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction dated 22.10.1997 and order on sentence dated 24.10.1997 thereby convicting the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months each and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month each under Sections 323/34 IPC.2. Brief facts of the case as set up by the prosecution are that the accused persons and the complainant side are resident of the Village Bak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:17.07.2013 Judgment delivered on:22.07.2013 CRL.A. 719/2010 & Crl. M.A No. 20265/2012 MANGE KHAN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Avninder Singh and Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Advocates versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State along with Inspector Rajesh Vijay. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.Crl. M.A No. 20265/2012 1 This is an application filed by the applicant Mange Khan under Section 391 read with Section 311 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for recalling PW-6, PW-8 & PW-9 for their further cross-examination. 2 The averments made in the application are to the effect that although admittedly all the aforenoted witnesses i.e. PW-6, PW-8 & PW-9 had been examined and cross-examined but because of the fault of the counsel, no effective cross-examinati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-22-2013
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :22. 07.2013 + CS(OS) 1608/2010 WUXE ZHANG & ANR Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Advocate with Mr. Ankur Sangal, Advocate versus SUBHASH AGARWAL & ANR Through: NEMO ..... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.(ORAL) The plaintiff has filed the present suit to seek the reliefs of injunction, passing of, copyright infringement, rendition of accounts, delivery up and damages against the defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that it is the prior user and adopter of the trademark GFIVE, which has been adopted by the plaintiff since 01.09.2008. The defendant has been using the mark, XFIVE which is phonetically, visually similar and deceptively similar to the plaintiffs mark, GFIVE. The user of the defendant is in the same class of goods i.e. class 35 in which plaintiffs mark is registered. The plaintiff and the defendants are using their respective marks in respect of mobile pho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-22-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. A. 201/2003 Date of Decision:22. d July, 2013 NARESH @ KOKI Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Hem C. Vashisht, Adv. along with appellant in person versus STATE OF DELHI Through ..... Respondent Ms. Fizani Husain, APP CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 22nd February, 2003 and order on sentence dated 7th March, 2003 arising out of Sessions Case No.133/2000 in case FIR No. 268/2000, PS Sangam Vihar under Sections 302/307/34 IPC vide which the appellant along with co-accused was held guilty of offence under Section 324/34 IPC and 326/34 IPC. All the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 326/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. Further rigorous imprisonment for one year was awarded to each of the accused persons under Section 324/34 IPC. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on :24. 07.2013 Judgment delivered on:29. 07.2013 + CRL.A. 791/2010 KAMAL KISHORE SINGH @ PANDIT Appellant Through: Mr.A.K.Trivedi, Advocate. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI Respondent Through: Mr.Sunil Sharma, Addl. Public Prosecutor. + CRL.A. 1014/2010 MUNNI LAL Through: .Appellant Mr.R.K.Anand, Advocate. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI Respondent Through: Mr.Sunil Sharma, Addl. Public Prosecutor. + CRL.A. 1239/2010 TILISRA Through: .Appellant Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI Respondent Through: Mr.Sunil Sharma, Addl. Public Prosecutor. CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 15.4.2010 vide which they had been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B (1) of the IPC. Accused Munni Lal and Tilisra had been further convicted under Section 45...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-06-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:06. 08.2013 W.P.(C) 7856/2012 and CM No.19738/2012 PRIYANKA GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through:Mr.K.K.Jha, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..... Respondents Through:Mr.Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate for R.1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) The petitioner before this Court passed out her 10+2 from West Bengal Council of Higher Education with second division. In the aforesaid examination, she obtained 35 marks out of 100 marks in chemistry. A perusal of her mark sheet would show that she had opted for two language subjects (English B and Hindi A), 3 Compulsory Elective (Biology, Mathematics and Physics) and one Optional Elective i.e Chemistry. She obtained 35 out of 100 marks in theory and 38 out of 100 marks in practical in Chemistry. She was declared passed in second division. The mark sheet also shows the following requirement with respect to the pass marks:- Clause 2(b) In Laboratory-based su...
Tag this Judgment!