Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-01-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:1. t July, 2014 % + CS(OS) 2589/2013 M/S ALLIED BLENDERS & DISTILLERS PVT. LTD.....Plaintiff Through: Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina and Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Shrawan Chopra & Ms. T. Saukshmya, Advs. Versus SHREE NATH HERITAGE LIQUOR PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sumit Rajput, Ms. Aastha Jain, Mr. Sarfaraz Ahmad and Mr. Rajul Jain, Advs. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.IA No.20759/2013 (of the plaintiff u/O XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC) 1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling, distributing, advertising or dealing in alcoholic beverages especially Indian made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) or goods of any description bearing the trade mark Collectors Choice or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark Officers Choice and amounting to infringement of the plaintiffs registered trade m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : May-30-2014
M.S Nambiar (Judicial Member): 1. This application is for review/modification of the final order dated 03.04.2014 passed in original application no. 58/2013 filed by respondent No. 11/ Noticee no. 34 (M/s Jaypee Infratech Ltd.). By order dated 03.04.2014, the original application was disposed of giving certain directions making it clear that the decision taken by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) based on those directions will be subject to the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The O.A. was filed praying for a direction against the respondents to prevent illegal and unauthorized construction works undertaken by the developers within a radius of 10 Kms. from the boundary of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. While the original application was pending, by interim order dated 28.10.2013 based on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 04.12.2006 in "Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India". It was held that any new project which is being considered for the purpose of issuance...
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!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :25. h March, 2014 Date of Decision:28. h May, 2014 % + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.615/2011 ASIF @ SHABBU STATE ..... Appellant Through Mr. R.S. Dakha and Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocates. versus ..... Respondent Through Mr. RajatKatyal, APP with Inspector Manoj Pant, SHO Gandhi Nagar. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.688/2011 NADEEM @ CHICKNA ..... Appellant Through Mr. Gurbaksh Singh and Ms. RichaSamhita, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. RajatKatyal, APP with Inspector Manoj Pant, SHO Gandhi Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J: The impugned judgment dated 31st March, 2011 convicts Asif @ Shabbu and Nadeem @ Chikna under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC, for short) and Section 392 read with Section 397/34 IPC.2. By order on sentence dated 6th April, 2011, the two appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-...
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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : 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!