Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-24-2016
$~ * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (OS) 2060/2013 Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on:24. h December, 2016 1st December, 2016 M/s AZ Tech (India) & Anr. ..... Plaintiffs Through : Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sagar Chandra, Mr. Ankit Rastogi and Ms. Ishani Chandra, Advocates. versus M/s Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. & Anr. ..... Defendants Through : Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Aditya Gupta and Mr. Utkarsh Srivastava, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.I.A. No.17138/2013 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 &2) 1. This is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiffs seeking an ad interim injunction against the defendants from using the trademark AQUA. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction, delivery up, production of accounts, damages etc.2. The trademark involved in the present suit is the word mark Aqua pertaining to mobile phones (her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-24-2016
$ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:7. h December, 2016 Pronounced on:24th December, 2016 CS (OS) 2399/2010 MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLE PVT. LTD Through: Mr. Nischal Anand, Advocate with Mr. Aman Taneja, Advocate ...... Plaintiff Versus S.K. RAHEEM & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Ex-parte CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA1 JUDGMENT This suit was instituted in November, 2010 seeking the reliefs of permanent injunction, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc. by the plaintiff company it being a wholly owned subsidiary of National Dairy Development Board (NDDB), a body corporate constituted under the National Dairy Development Board Act, 1987, having its registered office at Mother Dairy, Patparganj, Delhi-110 092, within the jurisdiction of this court.2. The claim in the suit is founded, inter alia, on the trademark MOTHER DAIRY, registered in the name of the plaintiff for sale of its various products in the nature of liquid milk, dahi (curd), ice CS...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-09-2016
Rani Pratibha Rani, J. 1. After more than two decades of solemnisation of marriage and ten years of separation, the appellant/husband filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on account of cruelty but at the same time pleading that parties have been residing separately for more than twelve years. Why he preferred not to seek dissolution of marriage on account of desertion as well, cannot be ascertained from the record. On the basis of averments made in the divorce petition and appreciating the evidence led in support thereof, learned Judge, Family Court held that the accusations of cruelty against the wife could not be proved. This resulted in dismissal of the divorce petition. 2. The judgment and decree dated July 02, 2015 has now been assailed by the appellant/husband before this Court in the hope that the marriage having become dead, he may be able to get the marital ties with the respondent/wife snapped. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband during hearing of the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-29-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. OIL issued a Notice Inviting Tender on July 19, 1993 to drill and set up four Offshore Oil/Gas Wells, three at Saurashtra Offshore and one at Orissa Offshore. The work had to be executed on turnkey basis i.e. drillship, associated equipment, personnel and services were to be provided by the bidder, called as operator under the NIT. In response, ESSAR submitted its bid on December 06, 1993. There was an exchange of correspondence between the parties. Offer being accepted, OIL issued a letter of intent on February 20, 1995, which was followed by a formal agreement executed by the parties on May 08, 1995. As per the agreement the operations had to be completed within one year. Rates were fixed for payment. The three wells Offshore Saurashtra coast at locations L-2, L-3 and L-4 had to be completed first, followed by drilling at the location at L-1; Offshore Orissa. Depth to which the wells had to be drilled was specified. Number of days required for drilling and te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-18-2016
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: September 20, 2016 Judgment Delivered on: October 18, 2016 CRL.A. 1573/2011 & Crl.M.B. 2270/2011 GAURI SHANKAR ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate. STATE Versus ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.State.1. Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 307/174A IPC Gauri Shankar challenges the impugned judgment dated June 02, 2011 and the order on sentence dated June 06, 2011 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of `500/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of `500/- for the offence punishable under Section 174A IPC.2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant contends that there are material contradictions in the statement of PW-1, Kusum on whose testimony the conv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-19-2016
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on 5th September, 2016 Decided on 19th October, 2016 LPA6162012 HARDWARI LAL SHARMA Through Mr.Mahendra Singh, Advocate ..... Appellant versus Through Mr.Harvinder Singh, Advocate ..... Respondent PUSTAK MAHAL PUBLISHERS % CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. Hardwari Lal, in this intra court appeal impugns the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 6th August, 2012 passed in WP(C) No.1333/2008 titled as Pustak Mahal Publishers vs. Hardwari Lal Sharma whereby the award dated 10th July, 2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court- II directing reinstatement of appellant with continuity of service and 50% back wages and all other benefits was set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent- management was allowed.2. The admitted case of the parties is that the appellant was employed as a clerk with the respondent on 1st November, 1978 whereafter he l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-27-2016
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CRL.A.No.395/2000 Reserved on :26. h September, 2016 Date of decision :27. h October, 2016 RAMESH KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. versus Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Amicus Curiae. STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Varun Goswami, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. TEJI JUDGMENT GITA MITTAL, J.1. By the instant appeal, the appellant assails the judgment dated 17th May, 2000 whereby he stands convicted for commission of the offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC with which he was charged in SC Case No.25/1999 arising out of FIR No.5registered by the Police Station Jahangir Puri under Sections 498A/304B/4of the IPC and the consequential order of sentence dated 23rd May, 2000 whereby he has been sentenced to undergo Crl.A.No.395/2000 Page 1 of 56 rigorous imprisonment for three years for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC with fine of `500/- and in d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-02-2016
$~6 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + W.P.(C) 2194/2016 & CM No.9414/2016, 29316/2016 Judgment delivered on:02. 11.2016 DELHI GLIDING CLUB versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. K.C. Mittal with Ms. Ruchika Mittal, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocate. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) CM No.9415/2016 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 2194/2016 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 15.02.2016 passed by the Airport Appellate Tribunal at Safdarjung Airport in so far as it relates to Appeal No.16/CP/A-80/2015 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the eviction order dated 05.11.2015.2. It may be noted that the said order also deals with Appeal No.15/CP/A-80/2015 whereby the appeal of the petitioner, impugning the order of the Eviction Officer under the Airports Authority of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-02-2016
$~35. * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 2450/2015 Judgment dated 02nd November, 2016 PRESIDENT & FELLOWS OF HARV AND COLLEGE Through : Ms. Parul Singh, Advocate versus ..... Plaintiff SHRI RAJESH GOYAL ..... Defendant Through : Mr. Pratap Singh and Mr. Anwedra CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI Singh, Advocates G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for infringement and passing off of the mark Harvard seeking a decree against the defendant restraining them from using the mark. The plaintiff is the President & Fellows of Harvard College incorrectly mentioned as the President & Fellows of Harv and College.2. Despite service, the written statement has not been filed within the statutory period. The matter as passed over once and called second time to enable the counsels to take instructions in the matter. Counsel for the defendant submits that the defendant has no objection if the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-04-2016
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + + Reserved on :24. h October, 2016 Date of Decision:04. h November, 2016 Crl.M.A.No.15239/2016 in CRL.A. No.715/2013 MAHENDER YADAV ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikas Arora, Mr. Radhika Arora, Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocates. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ... Respondent Through: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate (SPP) with Mr. D.P. Singh, Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Ms. Hiral Gupta, Mr. Manu Mishra & Mr. Harinder Bains, Advocates for CBI. Mr. H.S. Phoolka Senior Advocate with Ms. Kamna Vohra, Ms. Shilpa Dewan, Advocates for the Complainant. Mr.Gurbaksh Singh & Mr. Lakhmi Chand, Advocates for victim Jagsher Singh. Crl.M.A.No.15233/2016 in CRL.A. No.753/2013 KRISHAN KHOKAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Arora, Ms. Radhika Arora & Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocates. versus C B I ..... Respondent Through: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate (SPP) with Mr. D.P. Singh, Ms. Tarannum Crl.A.Nos.715/2013, 753/2013 & 1099...
Tag this Judgment!