Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on : Mar-07-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Complainant Sh. Anil Khanna has filed this complaint against the OP for return of Rs.8,01,000/- received from the complainant by the respondent for providing agreed services but committed gross deficiency of service, compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for mental agony, pain and harassment etc. and litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. 2) The marriage ceremony of complainants daughter was scheduled to be solemnized on 06.05.2011 following which the complainant decided to engage the services of respondent company which represented to have immense market reputation in providing works of painting, props, accessories, floral, fabric and linen and other related works including generators and lighting. The respondent promised to make various wedding functions such as Bhajan Sandhya (on 29.04.2011), Sagan (on 04.05.2011) Mehndi/Ladies Sangeet (on 05.05.2011) and finally wedding ceremony on 06.05.2011, a resounding success and memorable. Accordingly Mr. Vikas Gututi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-04-2014
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: March 4, 2014 + CS(OS) 102/2013, I.A. No.932/2013 & I.A. No.2869/2014 THE COCA-COLA COMPANY & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through Ms.Ekta Sarin, Adv. versus K.M SALIM ..... Defendant Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for injunction and damages for infringement of registered trade mark, infringement of copyright, passing off and act of unfair competition.2. Despite of service, on 15th March, 2013, the defendant chose not to appear in Court. He was proceeded ex-parte on 14th February, 2014. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for pronouncement of judgment against the defendant on account of failure to file the written statement and to contest the matter.3. Counsel for the plaintiffs made her submissions on merit also.4. Let me examine the case of plaintiffs on merit.5. The plaintiff No.1, the Coca-Cola Company (TCCC), is a corporati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-26-2014
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:- 26th February, 2014 + CRIMINAL APPEAL5621999 NAND LAL Through ..... Appellant Mr. Akshay Sapra, Advocate. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.Appellant Nand Lal by the impugned judgment dated 19 th April, 1999 has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) for murder of Rubi Kumar in the intervening night between 15th and 16th December, 1992 at A-260, Mukandpur Colony, Delhi. The conviction arises out of FIR No.486/1992, police station Samaipur Badli, which became subject matter of Session Case No.135/1994. The appellant was also charged under Section 376 IPC, but has been acquitted. State has not preferred any appeal against the said acquittal. By order of sentence dated 29th April, 1999, the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-. In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-25-2014
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:- 25th February, 2014 + CRIMINAL APPEAL5621999 NAND LAL Through ..... Appellant Mr. Akshay Sapra, Advocate. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.Appellant Nand Lal by the impugned judgment dated 19 th April, 1999 has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) for murder of Rubi Kumar in the intervening night between 15th and 16th December, 1992 at A-260, Mukandpur Colony, Delhi. The conviction arises out of FIR No.486/1992, police station Samaipur Badli, which became subject matter of Session Case No.135/1994. The appellant was also charged under Section 376 IPC, but has been acquitted. State has not preferred any appeal against the said acquittal. By order of sentence dated 29th April, 1999, the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-. In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment pronounced on: February 25, 2014 I.A. No.10442/2013 in CS(OS) No.1299/2013 MEX SWITCHGEARS PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Mr. Amit Jain, Ms. Ekta Nayar and Mr. Vaibhav Kashyap, Advs. versus MAX SWITCHGEARS PVT LTD ..... Defendant Through Mr. Vikas Chhabra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By this order, I propose to decide the pending interim application being I.A. No.10442/2013 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of Code Of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) in a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, corporate name, copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc.2. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff i.e. Mex Switchgears Private Limited through its predecessor is the first adopter and user of the trade mark MEX since the year 1960 for electric switchgears, switches, ignition switche...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:21. 02.2014 CO.PET.95/2011 REVELL GMBH & CO. KG ..... Petitioner versus M/s FORE SQUARE RETAIL PRIVATE LTD. ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Ms Rekha Palli and Ms Punam Singh. For the Respondent : Mr Manik Dogra. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner company under Sections 433(e) and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, praying for winding up of the respondent company on the ground that the respondent company has failed and neglected to pay a sum of USD534696.20, due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner on account of supply of goods (Model Kits products, Paints Accessories, Airbrush, Metal and Slot Cars). The respondent disputes that any amount is due and payable to the petitioner. The respondent alleges that goods supplied by the petitioner were defective, hazardous and substandard and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.879/2004 LT.COL.(RETD.)MUNISHWAR DEV BAKSHI ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. D. V. Khatri, Adv. versus PARSHOTTAM DASS BAKSHI & ORS. ..... Defendant Through Mr. Rajesh Tyagi for D-1(1to5) Mr.Hari, Adv. with Mr.Sanjeev Tyagi, Adv. for D-2to 6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR ORDER % 21.02.2014 I.A. No.14534/2012 (condonation of delay) 1. By this application filed under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC), the applicant/defendant No.1 seeks condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the accompanying Review Application.2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the accompanying review application is condoned.3. Application stands disposed of. Review App. 443/2012 1. By this review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 and Section 151 of CPC, the applicant/defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-2014
D.N. Panda, J. 1. Consequent upon receipt of an intelligence by DRI from China on 19.09.2005 through the consulate General of India, Hong Kong that one M/s Vikas Overseas, B-6, Arya Nagar Society, Patparganj, Delhi having IEC No. 0592009335 had exported Ketamine from India in the guise of Alfa Olefin Sulphonate (AOS) and 1010 Kgs of Ketamine was seized by Chinese Bureau of Narcotics Control, DRI investigated into the export made by Shipping Bill No. 1494427 dated 06.08.2005 backed by Invoice No. 465/2005-06 dated 04.08.2005 covering export of 17,500 kgs of Alfa Olefin Sulphanate (AOS) to a Chinese buyer viz., M/s Yantai High Link Import and Export Co. Ltd., 47, X inanhe Road, Yantai, China, by M/s Vikas Overseas in India. 2. According to the outcome of investigation, there was an allegation against Shri Devinder Pramod and Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta that they had exported Ketamine in terms of 3 (three) Shipping Bills No. 1494427 dated 06.08.2005 1435176 dated 02.11.2004, 1470670 dated 29....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-19-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.384/1998 Reserved on:13. h January, 2014 Date of Decision:19. h February, 2014 % OM PARKASH @ RAM KIRPAL Through ..... Appellant Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate. Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rajat Katyal, Additional Public Prosecutor. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J: Om Prakash, the appellant stands convicted under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) by the impugned judgment dated 30th May, 1998 arising out of FIR No.217/1991, police station Dabri. By order on sentence dated 30th May, 1998, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. For the offence under Section 324 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The sentences were to run concurr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. L.P. NO.367/2012 STATE Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Narender Kumar Choudhry, APP. versus NARESH & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. B.S. Rana and Mr. Vijender Bhardwaj, Advocates. % Date of Decision : February 10, 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI JUDGMENT : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.CRL. L.P. NO.367/2012 1. Leave granted.2. Registry shall register and number the Appeal. Crl. A. No._______/2013 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 17.12.2011 in Sessions Case No.82A/2011 acquitting the Respondents Naresh, Suresh, Nirmala, Niyadher Singh and Harnandi for the offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and 304B read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the State has preferred the present Appeal.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the Appeal are that on 28.5.2005, on receipt of DD No.14A, ASI Ishwar Dutt (PW11) reached...
Tag this Judgment!