Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-02-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 4635/2018, C.M. APPL.17879-80/2018 PIONEER HORTICULTURE PVT. LTD. Through: Sh. Aakash Naval, Advocate. Decided on:02. 05.2018 ........ Petitioner * + versus PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Sh. Ramesh Singh, Standing Counsel with Sh. Chirayu Jain, Advocates, for GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA % MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioner (hereafter Pioneer) challenges the rejection of its bid submitted in response to a notice inviting tenders issued by Public Works Department (hereafter "PWD"). The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and carries on business in garden development, maintenance, supply of ornamental plants, supply of garden related material, supply of flowers and landscaping work etc. The respondent is an agency of Govt. of NCT of Delhi engaged in planning, designing, construction and maintenance o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-02-2018
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.663 OF2018(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO.7483 OF2017 Tularam ..Appellant versus The State of Madhya Pradesh ..Respondent JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant Tularam was accused and convicted of having committed the murder of Bhadri Lodhi during an altercation that took place on 9th June, 2002.3. On that date, a quarrel took place between Ramnath and Raju at about 6 p.m. in the flourmill of Ramnath. The details of this quarrel are not available on record but it appears that subsequently at about 7.30 p.m. after Ramnath closed his flourmill and was returning home, he was accosted by Raju. A quarrel again ensued between the two and in the midst of that quarrel, they were joined by Bipatlal Lodhi, the grandfather Crl. A. No.663 of 2018 (@SLP (Crl.) No.7483 of 2017) page 1 of 6 of Raju who came with a lathi, Santu, the nephew of Ramnath and Bhadri Lodhi, brother of Ramn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-02-2018
REPORTABLE INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION CIVILAPPEALNO.46762018 (arisingoutofS.L.P.(C)No.15459of2017) SARIKA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ADMINISTRATOR, SHRIMAHAKALESHWARMANDIR COMMITTEE,UJJAIN(M.P.)&ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ARUNMISHRA,J.1.2. Leavegranted. ThepetitionpertainstofamousMahakaleshwartemple,Ujjain. TheappellanthasimpugnedthejudgmentandorderpassedinWrit AppealNo.37/2014bytheDivisionBenchoftheHighCourtofMadhya PradeshatIndoretherebysettingasidetheorderpassedbytheSingle Benchon4.12.2013inW.P.No.10712of2013.3. MahakaleshwarisanancienttempleofLordShiva. Inorderto understandtheimportanceoftheLingamitisnecessarytoconsiderit, inbrief,thehistoryofMahakalShiva,worshippingofstatuesand Lingam,originofMahakal,sameasdefinedinscripturesetc.aspointed 1 out in the reply of Mahant Prakash Giri of Shri Panchayati Akhara Mahanirvaniisasunder:BRIEFHISTORYOFMAHAKALSHIVA Since ancient times in Hindu culture definitions are found in name of Shiva, Pasupati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-25-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on - 09.01.2018. Date of Decision - 25.04.2018. + W.P.(C) 934/2012 & C.M. No.18315/2014 SUDHIR VOHRA ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Amit Bhagat, Adv with Ms. Sonali Chopra, Adv. versus REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ORS ..... Respondent Through Ms. Suparna Srivastava, CGSC with Mr. Tushar Mathur, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Milanka Chaudhary, Adv. with Mr. Siddarth Mehra, Adv. for BDP Design. Mr. Naseem R. Nath, Adv. with Mr. Abhimanyu Verma, Adv. for R-3. Mr. Sunil Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. H.S. Chandhoke, Mr. Prashant Mishra & Ms. Jomol, Advs. for R-6. Mr. Anish Dayal with Mr. SiddharthVaid & Ms. Rupam Sharma, Advs. for Intervener in C.M. No.14122/2013. + W.P.(C) 3975/2012 & C.M. Nos.4055/2013 & 15336/2017 ANIL KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Amit Bhagat, Adv. with Ms. Sonali Chopra, Adv. versus WP (C) No.934/2012& conn. Page 1 of 46 THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Ms. Anumi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-20-2018
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :12. h March, 2018 Date of Decision:20. h April, 2018 RFA172009 Through: Ms. Anuradha Salhotra & Mr. Achal ..... Appellant + MARICO LTD versus Shekhar, Advs. (M-9602338663). MRS. JAGIT KAUR Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGMENT ..... Respondent Prathiba M. Singh, J.1. Before the Copyright Board, an application was preferred under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 by Hindustan Unilever Limited, the predecessor of Marico Ltd., Appellant herein, (hereinafter Appellant) against one M/s. J.K. Enterprises (proprietary concern of Mrs. Jagjit Kaur) (hereinafter, Respondent). The Appellant sought rectification of the impugned entry in the Register of Copyrights bearing No.A-64850/2003 dated 25th July, 2003, which is an artistic work for the label NIHAL UTTAM. The Appellant claims to be the successor-in-interest of Tata Oil Mill Company Ltd. (hereinafter, TOMCO) which had coined the brand name TATA NIHAR. In 1994, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-20-2018
$~12 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:20. 04.2018 FAO(OS) (COMM) 70/2018, CAV3392018 & CM APPLN. 15397- 15398/2018 PRADEEP SHARMA & ANR ..... Appellants UPL LTD Through Mr.Benu Gunjan Jha, Advocate. versus ..... Respondent Through Mr.Amit Sibal, Ms.Rajeshwari, and Mr.Tahir A.J., Mr.Aditya Mr.Amber, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(oral) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order restraining him from infringing the plaintiff/respondents patents (IN20613, IN19422 and IN24455- hereafter as INs 130, 225 and 551, respectively). IN225titled "a process of preparing a chemically stable synergistic herbicidal composition" is a process patent; IN130titled as "a chemically stable synergistic herbicidal composition" is a product patent and IN551titled as "a stable synergistic herbicidal composition" is both a product and process patent. According to the plaintiffs claim, Metsulfuron Methyl and Su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-19-2018
* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:19. h April, 2018 + W.P.(CRL) 2099/2017 and Crl. M.A. No.11766/2017 (stay) JAGANNATH D PARKHI ........ Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Ashok K. Panigrahi and Mr. Rajvardhan Singh, Advocates. versus Y. HARI KUMAR, IO C B I & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Represented by: Mr.Sanjeev Bhandari, Spl. P.P. for CBI. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. By this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of Regular Case No.R.C.2(S)/98/SCBI/CBI/DLI dated 28th August, 1998 registered by CBI against the petitioner and to declare that the respondents illegally arrested the petitioner, thus are liable to pay exemplary damages and also action against respondents for false and frivolous case foisted on the petitioner.2. Above noted FIR was registered on a written complaint received by Superintendent of Police from J.C. Tiwari, Inspector/SCB-II on 24th August, 1998 alleging that the petitioner had cheated Government of India to the tun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-18-2018
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.579 OF2016UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS CDR. RAVINDRA V. DESAI ..RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CRIMINAL APPEAL No.574 OF2016JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.These two are cross appeals filed by both the parties to the lis. On the one hand is the Union of India, along with the Chief of Naval Staff as well as the Flag Officer, Commanding-in-Chief, Headquarters, Western Naval Command (hereinafter referred to as the appellants). On the other hand is Commander Ravindra V. Desai, a naval officer with Indian Navy (hereinafter referred to as the respondent).2. On certain allegations against the respondent, he was served with charge-sheet containing ten charges which led to the court martial Criminal Appeal No.579 of 2016 a/w connected matter Page 1 of 29 proceedings against him. Court Martial returned the finding of guilty on all charges which led to imposition of sentence of dismissal from the naval servi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-18-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:18. h April, 2018 $~18 * % + MAC.APP. 119/2018 U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Shadab Khan, Adv. versus SHAKUNTLA DEVI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Bhupesh K. Chandra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.9,04,000/- has been awarded to respondents No.1 to 7.2. The accident dated 20th August, 2010 resulted in the death of Naval Singh. The deceased was aged 50 years at the time of the accident and was survived by his widow, two sons, three daughters and father who claimed compensation. The deceased was working as a baildar (labourer). It was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. However, in the absence of any proof of income, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of Rs.5,278/-, deducted 1/5th towards his personal expenses and applied the multiplier ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-12-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on:20. h March, 2018 Pronounced on:12. h April, 2018 + O.M.P. (COMM) 149/2017 and IA No.3726/2017 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Through : Mr.Manish K ........ Petitioner Bishnoi, Mr.Devansh and Mr.Ashok C Parkash Malhotra, Advocates. Srivastava, versus NCC-VEE(JV) ..... Respondent Through : Mr.T.K.Ganju, Sr Advocate with Mr.manish Dembla and Ms.Ankita Rai, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA YOGESH KHANNA, J.1. This petition is under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with section 10(2) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Court Act 2015 arising out of the majority order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the learned tribunal.2. The learned arbitral tribunal had allowed an application filed by the respondent under Section 12(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act O.M.P. (COMM) 149/2017 Page 1 of 16 allegedly in contradiction to the rig...
Tag this Judgment!