Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :25.04.2014 + I.A. No.23086/2012 in CS(OS) No.3534/2012 ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. Through Mr.Manav Kumar, Advocate versus RAJ KUMAR PRASAD & ORS. Through ....Plaintiff ....Defendants Mr.Mohan Vidhani, Mr.Rahul Vidhani and Mr.Arun K.Jain, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.I.A. No.23086/2012 1. The present application is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking injunction to restrain the defendants etc. from manufacturing or offering for sale medicinal or pharmaceutical preparations under the trademark AMAFORTEN or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trademark ANAFORTAN. Other connected reliefs are also sought for. The accompanying plaint is filed by the plaintiff stating that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, USA which was founded in the year 1888. The trademark ANAFORTAN is stated to be an invented mark having no dictionary meaning. It is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-22-2014
$~5. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.389/2011 Date of decision:22. d April, 2014 ARVIND KUMAR ..... Appellant Through Mr. Mohan Tyagi & Ms. Ruchi Kapur, Advocates. Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) Arvind Kumar has challenged his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for having committed murder of Kusheshwar on 29th April, 2006 by a fire arm injury. The impugned judgment dated 12th January, 2011, however, acquits the appellant under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 on the ground of want of sanction. State has not preferred any appeal against the said acquittal. By order on sentence dated 27 th January, 2011, the appellant has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo Simple Imprisonme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-17-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17. h April, 2014 + CRL.L.P. 352/2012 STATE ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP with SI Vivek Yadav, PS S.J.Enclave. versus JEEWAN KUMAR PASWAN & ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate for Jeewan Kumar Paswan. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.Crl.M.A. 12502/2012 Delay in filing of the leave to appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 352/2012 Appellant-State has not been able to verify and positively ascertain whether respondent No.2 has expired. It is, however, stated that as per the information available and ascertained, respondent No.2 was a vagabond and resident of Nepal but no one knows his address in the said country. Orally it was stated that respondent No.2 has expired.2. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate, who has entered appearance on behalf of respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Apr-16-2014
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. The applicant, a Constable in Delhi Police, filed the present OA questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Charge Memorandum dated 23.08.2013 (Annexure A1) and the Summary of Allegations dated 23.08.2013 (Annexure A2). 2. The charge leveled against the applicant reads as under: It is alleged against Ct. Satish Chand, No.6234/DAP(PIS No.28892790) that on 19.06.2013, he along with Ct. Parmanand, No.1659/DAP was deployed on patrolling duty outside PHQ on the pavement from main gate to exit gate (X-17) and they were provided with WT sets. On that day, Inspector Ramesh Chander as routine, checked the staff detailed on duty at the various points of PHQ Guard and when at about 4 PM the Inspector noticed a motor-cycle was unauthorizedly parked at the pavement, he made search for the deployed staff who were found from their duty point. He called both the Constables through HC Kanwar Singh on W.T. sets and they were found coming from Exit Gate of PHQ. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.517/1999 % Reserved on:24. h January, 2014 Date of Decision:3. d April, 2014 GURDEEP SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate. Versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J: Appellant-Gurdeep Singh challenges his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for murder of Baljit Singh and violation of Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, vide judgment dated 15th March, 1999 in Sessions Case No.30/98 arising out of FIR No.946/1997, Police Station Patel Nagar. By order on the point of sentence dated 16th March, 1999, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, he ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.476/1998 Reserved on:28. h February, 2014 Date of Decision:3. d April, 2014 % SHANKAR LAL@SHANKAR Through ..... Appellant Mr. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate. Versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Additional Public Prosecutor. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J: Shankar Lal @ Shankar by the impugned judgment dated 30th September, 1998 stands convicted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder of his uncle Mukesh Kumar. Said Mukesh Kumar was son of Mishri Lal from his second wife, whereas the appellant herein is son of Rohtas, who was born from the first wife of Mishri Lal. By order on sentence dated 6th October, 1998, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which, he has to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.2. The main contention or plea raised in the appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-02-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: April 02, 2014 + CRL.A.694/1999 ABDUL RASHEED Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Pramod Swarup, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akshay Verma, Advocate. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State CRL.A.1/2000 MOHD. YAMEEN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Pramod Swarup, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akshay Verma, Advocate. versus STATE Through: + CRL.A.4/2000 ABDUL HAMID ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pramod Swarup, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akshay Verma, Advocate. versus STATE Through: Crl.A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, Additional CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J1 The challenge in these appeals is to the impugned judgment dated 24.11.1999 and the order on sentence dated 29.11.1999, passed by the learned Additional ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Apr-01-2014
1. The above applications were filed in NGT against the proposed widening of sectoral roads involving cutting of number of trees in front of National Media Centre (NMC). The Project Proponents stated to be involved in the project are Haryana Development Authority (HUDA) and DLF Ltd. The main contention of the applicants is that there will be significant air and noise pollution problems due to movement of traffic in the area due to cutting of trees which were acting as a buffer and reducing noise and dust pollution. Incidentally, an email was received by NGT from Haryali Welfare Society addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Haryana and the Copy was sent to NGT raising the similar issues pertaining to the cutting of trees by DLF/HUDA, which was treated as an Application no. 120/2013. Regarding this Application No. 120/2013, NGT passed the order restraining the Respondents from cutting/felling or uprooting any tree on the site in question on 2/08/2013. Besides these two applications,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-25-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:25. h March, 2014 % + CS(OS) 3137/2012 PFIZER PRODUCTS, INC THROUGH: Mr.Sahil Sethi, Advocate ..Plaintiff VERSUS R.K. SINGH & ANR THROUGH: None ..Defendants CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI G.S. SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, rendition of accounts, delivery up and damages. Summons were issued in the suit on 19.10.2012, 02.01.2013, 25.02.2013 and on 19.07.2013. The plaintiff is aggrieved by use of the mark VIHAGRA by defendants. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the defendants and they were accordingly proceeded ex parte on 15.01.2014.2. The plaintiff has filed affidavit by way of evidence of Mr. Samir Kazi (PW1), which is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A. PW1 has deposed that he holds Power of Attorney from plaintiff in his favour and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1.3. Mr. Samir Kazi, PW1 has deposed tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: March 24, 2014 + CRL.A. 316/1998 NARESH GUPTA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate Versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 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, J.1. Challenge in the present appeal is the impugned judgment dated and order on sentence dated 30.07.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellant has been held guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment together with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to further undergo RI for a period of six months.2. The case of the prosecution in brief, can be summarized as under:On 24.06.1984 at about 6.55 p.m., SI Ashutosh was handed over a copy of the DD Report...
Tag this Judgment!