Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-17-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17. h April, 2014 + CRL.L.P. 352/2012 STATE ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP with SI Vivek Yadav, PS S.J.Enclave. versus JEEWAN KUMAR PASWAN & ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate for Jeewan Kumar Paswan. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.Crl.M.A. 12502/2012 Delay in filing of the leave to appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 352/2012 Appellant-State has not been able to verify and positively ascertain whether respondent No.2 has expired. It is, however, stated that as per the information available and ascertained, respondent No.2 was a vagabond and resident of Nepal but no one knows his address in the said country. Orally it was stated that respondent No.2 has expired.2. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate, who has entered appearance on behalf of respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-22-2014
$~5. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.389/2011 Date of decision:22. d April, 2014 ARVIND KUMAR ..... Appellant Through Mr. Mohan Tyagi & Ms. Ruchi Kapur, Advocates. Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) Arvind Kumar has challenged his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for having committed murder of Kusheshwar on 29th April, 2006 by a fire arm injury. The impugned judgment dated 12th January, 2011, however, acquits the appellant under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 on the ground of want of sanction. State has not preferred any appeal against the said acquittal. By order on sentence dated 27 th January, 2011, the appellant has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo Simple Imprisonme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Apr-25-2014
DR. P. Jyothimani (Judicial Member): 1. The Appellant in the present appeal was the original complainant before the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) and the Respondent No. 3 before the Appellate Authority. He has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20.12.2013 under Section 31-B of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and Section 35-B of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974. 2. The Impugned order of the Appellate Authority was passed in the appeal filed by respondent no. 1, the project proponent, under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. By such appeal he challenged the order of the HSPCB dated 31.03.2013, in and by which the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) has refused to grant consent to operate the unit of the respondent no. 1 for the year 2013 and 2014 under bot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :25.04.2014 + I.A. No.23086/2012 in CS(OS) No.3534/2012 ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. Through Mr.Manav Kumar, Advocate versus RAJ KUMAR PRASAD & ORS. Through ....Plaintiff ....Defendants Mr.Mohan Vidhani, Mr.Rahul Vidhani and Mr.Arun K.Jain, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.I.A. No.23086/2012 1. The present application is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking injunction to restrain the defendants etc. from manufacturing or offering for sale medicinal or pharmaceutical preparations under the trademark AMAFORTEN or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trademark ANAFORTAN. Other connected reliefs are also sought for. The accompanying plaint is filed by the plaintiff stating that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, USA which was founded in the year 1888. The trademark ANAFORTAN is stated to be an invented mark having no dictionary meaning. It is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-28-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.154/2013 28th April, 2014 % KARTAR SINGH Through: ......Appellant Mr. Himanshu Dutt, Adv. VERSUS RAM ANUJ PANDEY Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This second appeal impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 4.2.2012 and the first appellate court dated 5.12.2012; by which the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for possession was decreed with respect to the suit land being a plot of 40 sq. yds in K.No.11/19, Village Jhuljhuli Extention, New Delhi-73.2. The respondent-plaintiff claimed possession of the suit plot on the ground that he had purchased rights of the same on the basis of general power of attorney registered before the sub-Registrar on 25.2.2002 by the appellant-defendant. Appellant-defendant had also executed a Will dated 25.2.2002 in favour of the respondent-plain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-29-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : March 21, 2014 DECIDED ON : April 29, 2014 + CRL.A.323/2012 ABDUL AZIZ Through : ..... Appellant Mr.R.P.S.Jaiswal, Advocate. versus STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The appellant-Abdul Aziz challenges the correctness and legality of a judgment dated 04.02.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 (North) in Sessions Case No.52/2011 arising out of FIR No.263/2006 under Section 395/412/120B IPC registered at police station Kotwali by which he was convicted under Section 412 IPC. By an order dated 09.02.2012, he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine `10,000/-.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as set up in the charge- sheet, was that on 04.06.2006 at about 3.15 p.m. a decoity took place at the office of the complainant-Sukhbir Sharan Aggarwal at 1994, Katra Lachu Singh, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The assailants decamped with cash `22/23 l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-29-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: April 29, 2014 + CRL.A. 512/2000 MANNU Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Nidhi Raman, Amicus Curiae Versus THE STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J1 By this appeal filed under section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2000 and order on sentence dated 30.05.2000 whereby the Appellant Mannu was convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, further to pay fine of Rs.10000 and in case of default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.2. The facts germane to the case of the prosecution are that PW-3 H.C Chander Bhan while on patro...
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!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 : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : May-28-2014
M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) Appeal No. 172 of 2013 (SZ) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein against the order of the 1st respondent, Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short MoEF) dated 18.11.2013, granting Environmental Clearance (for short EC) to the 4th respondent, M/s. KGS Aranmula Air Port Ltd., to set up an airport at Mallappuzhasserry, Aranmula and Kidangannur villages in Kozencherry taluk of Pathanamthitta District, Kerala. A writ petition has also been filed in W.P. (C). No. 6004 of 2012 challenging the notification issued by the 2nd respondent, the State of Kerala declaring the area as an industrial area and the said writ petition is still pending before the Honble High Court of Kerala. The brief facts of the appeal filed herein are stated as follows: 2. The proposed airport is being set up by the 4th respondent on the banks of the holy river Pampa, in an ecologically sensitive and environmentally diverse and rich area. Aranmula is a declared he...
Tag this Judgment!