Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-18-2018
$~16. * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO(OS) (COMM) No.111/2018 Date of decision:18. h May, 2018 M/S DARRAMEKS HOTELS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through Mr. Punit D. Tyagi & Mr. Ankit Parhar, Advocates. versus M/S ALTUS GRUOP INDIA PVT LTD. Through Nemo. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): This intra-Court appeal under Section 37(1) (c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act, for short) read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court Act, 2015 impugns order dated 20th March, 2018 whereby the Learned Single Judge has partly allowed the objections under Section 34 of the A & C Act filed by the respondent, M/s Altus Group India Private Limited.2. We have heard Learned counsel for the appellant, who submits that Sub-clause (IV) of Clause (9) of the contract relating to termination of the agreement wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-16-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A.780 /2002 Reserved on:3. d May, 2018 Decision on:16th May, 2018 RAJBIR .....Appellant Through: Mr. S.P. Kaushal, Mr. Amit Wahi, Mr. Sachin Kumar and Mr. Ravinder Mahender Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ....Respondent Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 10th September, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) arising out of FIR No.566/1998 registered at Police Station (PS) Malviya Nagar, convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the order on sentence dated 11th September, 2002 sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/-; and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for three months.2. The charge against the Appellant (Accused No.1: A-1)was that he along Crl. A. 780 /2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-07-2018
$~5 & 6 * 5 + 6 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A.333/2018 & Crl.M.(Bail)No.469/2018 HARISH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K. Singhal, Prasanna, Ms. Vani Singhal and Mr. Nishant Bhardwaj, Advocates versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State CRL.A.336/2018 & Crl.M.(Bail)No.474/2018 HARKA @ DEEPAK Through: Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate ..... Appellant versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA JUDGMENT0705.2018 % 1. These are two appeals against the common judgment dated 13th February 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Courts, Shahdara convicting both the Appellants for the offence under Section 3IPC and the order on sentence dated 20th February 2018 whereby both the Appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo CRL.A. 333/2018 & Crl.A.33...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-07-2018
$~5 & 6 * 5 + 6 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A.333/2018 & Crl.M.(Bail)No.469/2018 HARISH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K. Singhal, Prasanna, Ms. Vani Singhal and Mr. Nishant Bhardwaj, Advocates versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State CRL.A.336/2018 & Crl.M.(Bail)No.474/2018 HARKA @ DEEPAK Through: Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate ..... Appellant versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA JUDGMENT0705.2018 % 1. These are two appeals against the common judgment dated 13th February 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Courts, Shahdara convicting both the Appellants for the offence under Section 3IPC and the order on sentence dated 20th February 2018 whereby both the Appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo CRL.A. 333/2018 & Crl.A.33...
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-20-2018
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:20. h March, 2018 O.M.P. (COMM) 499/2016 ALTUS GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Savita Sarna, Ms.Chinmayee Chandra and Ms.Manila Munjal, Advs. versus DARRAMEKS HOTELS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr.Saurabh Banerjee and Mr.Bikranu Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Arbitral Award dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Sole Arbitrator inter-alia holding therein that the termination of the Agreement dated 14.02.2011 by the respondent was invalid and consequentially granting the claims of the respondent for refund of the mobilization advance as also awarding damages for such unlawful termination in favour of the respondent and against the petitio...
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-07-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 1195/2015 Date of Decision:-"7th April, 2018 MOBIN @ SONU ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate STATE versus Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP ..... Respondent SI Kawaljeet Singh, PS Kashmere Gate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % C. HARI SHANKAR, J1 The impugned judgment, dated 11th August, 2015, convicts the appellant, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC), for committing the murder of Akash, and sentences him to imprisonment for life, along with fine of 5,000/-, with six months simple imprisonment default sentence. It also extends, to the appellant, the benefit under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C).2. The case of the prosecution, as contained in the charge sheet, Crl Appeal 1195 of 2015 Page 1 of 67 dated 27th March, 2014, submitted by the prosecution to the Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-04-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 434/2002 PASHUPATI NATH SHAH (Deceased by LR) Through: Mr. D.K.Mathur, Advocate. ..... Appellant versus Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for State ..... Respondent $~5 * + STATE CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA ORDER0404.2018 % Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: Introduction 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 2nd March 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.175/1996 arising from FIR No.107/1995, registered at Police Station (PS) Dabri, convicting the Appellant for the offences under Sections 376 and 302 IPC. The appeal is also against the order on sentence dated 10th April 2002 whereby for the offence under Section 376 IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for one month; and for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the Appellant was sentenced ...
Tag this Judgment!