Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-05-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:05. 11.2014 CM96872014 in W.P.(C) 1971/2014 BAYER CORPORATION ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar, Ms Arpita Sawhney and Mr Arun Kumar. For the Respondents : Mr Riput Daman S. Bhardwaj, CGSC and Mr T.P. Singh for UOI. Mr Mukesh Anand with Ms Sonia Sharma, Mr V.C. Jha for R-2 to 4 Customs Department. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 This is an application filed on behalf of respondent no.5 (hereafter referred to as NPL) inter alia praying for permission to export 1 kg. of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (hereafter API) Sorafenib for the purposes of conducting development/clinical studies and trials. The said application was necessitated because of an interim order dated 26.03.2014 passed by this Court whereby respondent nos. 1 to 4 were directed to ensure ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 03, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: November10, 2014 % + CRL.A. 804/2014 SUNIL @ BABU Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.P.S.Pradhan, Advocate. versus STATE Represented by: + ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for the State with Inspector Yashpal Singh, Crime Branch and SI Gorav. Mr.Rajeev Nanda, Advocate for deceaseds father. CRL.A. 854/2014 VINOD @ VINODI Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Nandita Rao, Advocate. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for the State with Inspector Yashpal Singh, Crime Branch and SI Gorav. Mr.Rajeev Nanda, Advocate for deceaseds father. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Sunil @ Babu and Vinod @ Vinodi have been convicted for the offence of murder of Jitender vide impugned judgment dated March 26, 2014 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life.2. Learned counsels for the appellants assa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 03, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: November10, 2014 % + CRL.A. 804/2014 SUNIL @ BABU Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.P.S.Pradhan, Advocate. versus STATE Represented by: + ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for the State with Inspector Yashpal Singh, Crime Branch and SI Gorav. Mr.Rajeev Nanda, Advocate for deceaseds father. CRL.A. 854/2014 VINOD @ VINODI Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Nandita Rao, Advocate. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for the State with Inspector Yashpal Singh, Crime Branch and SI Gorav. Mr.Rajeev Nanda, Advocate for deceaseds father. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Sunil @ Babu and Vinod @ Vinodi have been convicted for the offence of murder of Jitender vide impugned judgment dated March 26, 2014 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life.2. Learned counsels for the appellants assa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-17-2014
$~9 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO2672014 Decided on 17th November, 2014 SMT. SANTOSHI & ORS Through: versus ..... Appellants Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. V.K. Jain, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1. Appellants are legal heirs of Late Shri Ram Nath. They filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi seeking compensation of `4 lacs in respect of death of Shri Ram Nath in relation to Firozpur Janta Express train. She alleged that on 8th October, 2012 deceased-Ram Nath was travelling from Tuglakabad Station to New Delhi Railway Station by Firozpur Janta Express when he accidentally fell down from the crowded compartment of the running train near Shivaji Bridge, Delhi due to heavy rush and sudden jerk. Deceased was rushed to RML Hospital where he died on 10:50 pm on the same day.2. Respondent alleged that deceased did not die in an untoward incident within the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-17-2014
$~9 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO2672014 Decided on 17th November, 2014 SMT. SANTOSHI & ORS Through: versus ..... Appellants Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. V.K. Jain, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1. Appellants are legal heirs of Late Shri Ram Nath. They filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi seeking compensation of `4 lacs in respect of death of Shri Ram Nath in relation to Firozpur Janta Express train. She alleged that on 8th October, 2012 deceased-Ram Nath was travelling from Tuglakabad Station to New Delhi Railway Station by Firozpur Janta Express when he accidentally fell down from the crowded compartment of the running train near Shivaji Bridge, Delhi due to heavy rush and sudden jerk. Deceased was rushed to RML Hospital where he died on 10:50 pm on the same day.2. Respondent alleged that deceased did not die in an untoward incident within the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-17-2014
$~9 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO2672014 Decided on 17th November, 2014 SMT. SANTOSHI & ORS Through: versus ..... Appellants Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. V.K. Jain, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1. Appellants are legal heirs of Late Shri Ram Nath. They filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi seeking compensation of `4 lacs in respect of death of Shri Ram Nath in relation to Firozpur Janta Express train. She alleged that on 8th October, 2012 deceased-Ram Nath was travelling from Tuglakabad Station to New Delhi Railway Station by Firozpur Janta Express when he accidentally fell down from the crowded compartment of the running train near Shivaji Bridge, Delhi due to heavy rush and sudden jerk. Deceased was rushed to RML Hospital where he died on 10:50 pm on the same day.2. Respondent alleged that deceased did not die in an untoward incident within the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-19-2014
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: November 19, 2014 + CRL.A. 50/2014 SINGH RAJ Represented by: STATE & ORS Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Dinkar Verma, Advocate versus ..... Respondents Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP Insp.Raman, SHO/PS Mehraulli SI Bijender Singh Mr.Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate for R2 and R-3 Mr.Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate for R-4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A.No.50/2014 For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. Crl.A.No.50/2014 1. Complainant is the appellant and his grievance is that respondents 2 to 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326/34 IPC. He desires that the respondents should be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.2. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the impugned order dated January 21, 2013 would show that the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-19-2014
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: November 19, 2014 + CRL.A. 50/2014 SINGH RAJ Represented by: STATE & ORS Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Dinkar Verma, Advocate versus ..... Respondents Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP Insp.Raman, SHO/PS Mehraulli SI Bijender Singh Mr.Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate for R2 and R-3 Mr.Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate for R-4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A.No.50/2014 For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. Crl.A.No.50/2014 1. Complainant is the appellant and his grievance is that respondents 2 to 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326/34 IPC. He desires that the respondents should be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.2. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the impugned order dated January 21, 2013 would show that the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-01-2014
$~R-101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA5692005 Reserved on 21st November, 2014 Delivered on 1st December, 2014 INDIAN AIRLINES Through ..... Appellant : Mr. Amit K. Pateria, Adv. Versus ANGELIQUE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ANR..... Through : None ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.1. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that wrong delivery of goods will fall within the ambit and scope of Clause 18 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (the Act, for short), thus, suit for recovery of `6,46,800/- filed by the respondent No.1 against appellant was barred by time, having been filed after two years of loss of goods, in view of Rule 29 of the first Schedule and Rule 30 of the second Schedule to the Act.2. By placing reliance on M/s. Vij Sales Corporation vs. Lufthansa Airlines, 1981 2 ILR (Del) 749, which was later on followed in Old Village Ind. Vs. British Airways 1991 RLR443 trial court, in the context of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-01-2014
$~R-101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA5692005 Reserved on 21st November, 2014 Delivered on 1st December, 2014 INDIAN AIRLINES Through ..... Appellant : Mr. Amit K. Pateria, Adv. Versus ANGELIQUE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ANR..... Through : None ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.1. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that wrong delivery of goods will fall within the ambit and scope of Clause 18 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (the Act, for short), thus, suit for recovery of `6,46,800/- filed by the respondent No.1 against appellant was barred by time, having been filed after two years of loss of goods, in view of Rule 29 of the first Schedule and Rule 30 of the second Schedule to the Act.2. By placing reliance on M/s. Vij Sales Corporation vs. Lufthansa Airlines, 1981 2 ILR (Del) 749, which was later on followed in Old Village Ind. Vs. British Airways 1991 RLR443 trial court, in the context of...
Tag this Judgment!