Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-01-2014
..... under sections 392/394/302 read with section 34 of the ipc by the judgment dated 4th march, 2010. however the other two accused, namely raj kumar and monu thappa @ nepali were given the benefit of doubt for the reason that no incriminating article had been recovered from them or at their instance and hence no role could be attributed to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-01-2014
..... under sections 392/394/302 read with section 34 of the ipc by the judgment dated 4th march, 2010. however the other two accused, namely raj kumar and monu thappa @ nepali were given the benefit of doubt for the reason that no incriminating article had been recovered from them or at their instance and hence no role could be attributed to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-01-2014
..... under sections 392/394/302 read with section 34 of the ipc by the judgment dated 4th march, 2010. however the other two accused, namely raj kumar and monu thappa @ nepali were given the benefit of doubt for the reason that no incriminating article had been recovered from them or at their instance and hence no role could be attributed to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-30-2014
..... named laxmi and sheela lived nearby and laxmi had an issue with rajbala concerning rajbala spreading in the neighbourhood that she had seen laxmi in a compromising position with a nepali boy. that apart, before asi om prakash entered the scene, the first police personnel to have met rajbala was ct.ramesh pw-22, on duty at the casualty of the ..... -3 deposed that sunita was her elder sister. her mother s name was rajbala. she knew laxmi and sheela. her mother had seen laxmi in a compromising position with a nepali boy and this was the reason for the strained relationship between her mother and laxmi. on september 20, 1995 she and her sisters sunita and shyama were in their house ..... these were not the clothes worn by her mother at the time of incident.8. on bring cross-examined she said that she did not know the name of the nepali boy with whom laxmi was having illicit relations. she said that she was 15 years old when her mother died. she said that besides her babita and shyama, her sisters ..... she knew the accused since they were distantly related to them. her mother rajbala had strained relations with laxmi because she had seen laxmi in a compromising position with a nepali boy. she deposed that on september 20, 1995 she was present in her house at 1:45 pm and so was her sister and her brother. laxmi and sheela came .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-06-2014
..... on the cot. the eldest son of sarla aged 20 years had slept on the roof. further deposition of pw-3 being that sarla and her husband were talking in nepali language and after that they both smoked cigarettes. later on sarla came and slept with pw-3 on the floor. after half an hour, dhan bahadur came to the floor .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : December 24, 2014 + FAO(OS) 540/2014 SHENZEN ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY CO LTD ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Kapil Sibal, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Pravin Anand, Ms.Amisha Nagarajan, Mr.Nischal Anand and Mr.Aman Taneja, Advocates versus MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Kirat Singh Nagra, Ms.Jyoti Pawar and Mr.Kartik Yadav, Advocates for R-1 Mr.Ashwani Mata, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.M.S.Ananth, Mr.A.Banarjee and Mr.Raghav Kapoor, Advocates for R-2 & R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. We shall be referring to the parties as under:- (a) Micromax Informatics Ltd. (The Plaintiff) : Micromax (b) Shenzhen OnePlus Technology Co.Ltd. (Defendant No.1) (c) : OnePlus Cyanogen Inc. and CyanogenMod LLC (Defendants No.2 &3) FAO (OS) No.540/2014 2. Micromax is the protagonist and OnePlus is the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : December 24, 2014 + FAO(OS) 540/2014 SHENZEN ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY CO LTD ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Kapil Sibal, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Pravin Anand, Ms.Amisha Nagarajan, Mr.Nischal Anand and Mr.Aman Taneja, Advocates versus MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Kirat Singh Nagra, Ms.Jyoti Pawar and Mr.Kartik Yadav, Advocates for R-1 Mr.Ashwani Mata, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.M.S.Ananth, Mr.A.Banarjee and Mr.Raghav Kapoor, Advocates for R-2 & R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. We shall be referring to the parties as under:- (a) Micromax Informatics Ltd. (The Plaintiff) : Micromax (b) Shenzhen OnePlus Technology Co.Ltd. (Defendant No.1) (c) : OnePlus Cyanogen Inc. and CyanogenMod LLC (Defendants No.2 &3) FAO (OS) No.540/2014 2. Micromax is the protagonist and OnePlus is the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:23. d December, 2014 % + CS(OS) 4039/2014 MAKE MY TRIP(INDIA) PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Prashant Gupta, Adv. with Mr.Kanishk Kumar, Adv. versus MAKE MY TOURS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Through None. ..... Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) I.A. No.26297/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing true typed copies of documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject to said documents being produced at the time of admission/denial of the documents. The application is disposed of. CS(OS) No.4039/2014 Let the plaint be registered as a suit. Issue summons to the defendants through all modes of service including e-mail in addition, returnable on 13th February, 2015. I.A. No.26296/2014 (u/o XXXIX R.1 & 2 CPC) 1. Issue notice to the defendants, returnable on 13th February, 2015.2. Plaintiff has filed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:23. d December, 2014 % + CS(OS) 4037/2014 M/S INDEPENDENT NEWS SERVICE PVT. LTD. (INDIA TV) ..... Plaintiff Through Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Ms. Jaya Mandela, Mr. Karan Bajaj and Ms. Rukma George, Advs. versus CRAZI MOBAPPS & ORS Through ..... Defendants None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) I.A. No.26291/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing original documents and to file dim documents with insufficient left side margin. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject to the same being produced at the time of admission/denial of the documents. The application is disposed of. I.A. No.26292/2014 (U/s 149 CPC) Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff states that she would be filing the Court fee within one week. In view of the statement made by the learned Senior co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:23. d December, 2014 % + CS(OS) 4039/2014 MAKE MY TRIP(INDIA) PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Prashant Gupta, Adv. with Mr.Kanishk Kumar, Adv. versus MAKE MY TOURS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Through None. ..... Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) I.A. No.26297/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing true typed copies of documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject to said documents being produced at the time of admission/denial of the documents. The application is disposed of. CS(OS) No.4039/2014 Let the plaint be registered as a suit. Issue summons to the defendants through all modes of service including e-mail in addition, returnable on 13th February, 2015. I.A. No.26296/2014 (u/o XXXIX R.1 & 2 CPC) 1. Issue notice to the defendants, returnable on 13th February, 2015.2. Plaintiff has filed...
Tag this Judgment!