Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned Letter Dtd: 19.08.2015 issued by the R-3 vide Annexure-C; direct the R-2 and 3 to permit the Petitioner to take admission in the 1st Year of B.A., L.L.B (Five Years) Course. This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direction or Order to approve the admission of the Petitioner with the R-2 College, that the petitioner has satisfied the Eligibility Criteria for admission for 5 Years of Law Degree Course. This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the E-Mail notice has been sent by the R-1 Dtd: 30.10.2015 produced at Annexure-N as the scheme is Lapsed and Quash the direction issued by the R-2 Dtd: 20.12.2010 produced at Annexure-M and also clarification letter issued Dtd: 06.10.2015 which is produced as Annexure-L. This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-21-2016
..... single judge has noted that the issue was in respect of grant of a protem ad-interim order till completion of pleadings by the parties. 10. the learned single judge has come to a prima-facie conclusion that at this stage at least the play lists of nepali nasha and haroon ka nasha in the website of 8 tracks.com are existing since the years 2012 and 2013 and of nashamusic.com since 2006, which websites have existed prior to adoption by the plaintiff in the year 2014 of the trademark 'pehla nasha' containing .....
Tag this Judgment!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 : Dec-22-2016
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. No.514/2000 Date of Decision :22. d December, 2016 SURAJ BHAN & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS Through Mr.M.L. Yadav, Adv. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION RESPONDENT Through Mr.Narender Mann, Spl.P.P. with Mr.Manoj Pant, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J1 Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 7th August, 2000 convicting the appellants finding them guilty under Sectionsof the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act, 1985) and order on sentence dated 9th August, 2000 vide which the sentence was passed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, in default of payment of fine, convict was to undergo further simple imprisonment for three years, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.2. The facts in brief are that on the basis of the Source ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: This Crl.A filed under 374(2) of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the Judgment and Order of conviction Dated 08.03.2013 and sentence Dated 11.03.2013 passed by the P.O., F.T.C.-III, Bengaluru (R) District, Bengaluru in S.C.No.214/2005-convicting the Appellant/Accused for the offence punishable under Section 143, 148, 341 r/w 149 and 302 r/w 149 of IPC. etc.,) 1. These three appeals are preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 8.3.2013 and order of sentence dated 11.3.2013 passed by the Fast Track Court-III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Sessions Case No.214/2005. 2. The appellants in Appeal No.296/2013 are accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 and the appellants in Appeal No.305/2013 are accused Nos.3 and 4 and the appellant in Appeal No.367/2013 is accused No.5 in S.C.No.214/2005. In these appeals, the respective appellants will be referred to in the same ranking as in S.C.No.214/2005. 3. A charge-sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 6 by the CPI of Hoskote Circle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-15-2016
W.P.No.533 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Lumbini Industries PVT.LTD.versus Union of India & ORS.For the Petitioner : Mr.R.K Chowdhary, Advocate Ms.Saswati Joardar, Advocate Mr.R.P.Paul, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Kaushik Chandra, Additional Solicitor General Ms.Aishwarya Rajyashree, Advocate Hearing concluded on Judgment on : November 22, 2016 : December 15, 2016 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- A Company registered in a foreign country has sought compensation from the Union of India for the loss of materials in transit through India as also withdrawal of a demand notice dated March 26, 2002 issued by the authorities on Company. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner is a company incorporated in Nepal. The petitioner had imported goods. In accordance with the treaty existing between Nepal and India, the petitioner had transported such imported goods from the port of Kolkata to Nepal. The goods were being t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-15-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 715/2012 Date of Decision:15. 12.2016 NARESH KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Amicus Curiae STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS ....... RESPONDENTS Through: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for versus the State CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) 1. The appellant assails his conviction by the judgment dated 10th May, 2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.1arising out of FIR No.898/2005 registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the Section 27/of the Arms Act registered by the police station Prashant Vihar with regard to an incident which took place on 15th October, 2005. The appellant also challenges the consequential order of sentence dated 2nd June, 2010 whereby he stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six month under Section 302 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Dec-14-2016
1 CRIMINAL APPEAL(SJ) NO. 717 OF2003Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.05.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 1999 by Shri Ganpati Tiwary, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Bokaro Mahun Mahato @ Mahadeo Mahato son of Darku Mahato resident of village Karnaria, P.S.- Balidih, District-Bokaro .....Appellant Vs. The State of Jharkhand ........Respondent For the Appellants :Mrs. Bandana Kumari Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Azeemuddin, APP PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA C.A.V. ON0808.2016 DELIVERED ON14/ 12 /2016 Ratnaker Bhengra,J : The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.05.2003 passed by Sri Ganpati Tiwary, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 1999 whereby and whereunder, appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 459 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-12-2016
ORDER SHEET CS No.26 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRESIDENCY EXPORTS & INDUSTRIES LTD.Versus SOUMIT RANJAN JENA BEFORE: The Honble JUSTICE SHIVAKANT PRASAD Date : 12th December, 2016. Appearance: Mr.Somraj Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.Lokenath Chatterjee, Adv.Mr.Indradeep Basu, Adv.The Court 5.12.2016, the : In compliance Superintendent, of Suit this Courts Registry order Department, dated has reported that the vakalatnama for the defendant represented by Mr.Diwakar R. Singh has been accepted on 8.10.2015 since Clauses 9 and 10 of the Letters Patent 1865 have been repealed and in view of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and in view of Rule 17 Chapter 8 of the Original Side Rules, let it be so recorded. Now, the suit is taken up for ex parte hearing. Mr.Prakhash Chand Bhandari, Director of the plaintiff company has deposed in support of his case. Plaint case in brief is that the plaintiff was and is carrying on business in trading an...
Tag this Judgment!