Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-24-2019
$~ * + + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 955/2018 SEEMA alias PRABHA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate with versus Mr. Nikhil Anand, Advocate THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for State with SI Raju Yadav, PS Sultanpuri, Delhi. AND CRL.A. 757/2018 KISHORE KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Bipin Kumar Jha, Advocate with Mr. Narsingh Narain Rai and Mr. Indu Bhushan Vimal, Advocates. versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for State with SI Raju Yadav, PS Sultanpuri, Delhi. Date of Decision:24. h May, 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL Crl.A.No.757/2018 & 955/2018 JUDGMENT Page 1 of 47 MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. While Crl.A.955/2018 has been filed by appellant-accused Seema @ Prabha, Crl.A. 757/2018 has been filed by appellant-accused Kishore Kumar challenging the judgment dated 22nd December, 2017 convicting them under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-24-2019
$~ * + + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 955/2018 SEEMA alias PRABHA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate with versus Mr. Nikhil Anand, Advocate THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for State with SI Raju Yadav, PS Sultanpuri, Delhi. AND CRL.A. 757/2018 KISHORE KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Bipin Kumar Jha, Advocate with Mr. Narsingh Narain Rai and Mr. Indu Bhushan Vimal, Advocates. versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for State with SI Raju Yadav, PS Sultanpuri, Delhi. Date of Decision:24. h May, 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL Crl.A.No.757/2018 & 955/2018 JUDGMENT Page 1 of 47 MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. While Crl.A.955/2018 has been filed by appellant-accused Seema @ Prabha, Crl.A. 757/2018 has been filed by appellant-accused Kishore Kumar challenging the judgment dated 22nd December, 2017 convicting them under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-16-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:16. 05.2019 + W.P.(C) 1163/2017 and CM APPL. 38867/2017 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ........ Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS :Mr Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with Ms Archana Shanker, Mr Shrawan Chopra, Ms Prachi Agarwal, Mr Devinder Rawat, Mr Pundreek Dwivedi and Ms Ridhie Bajaj. :Mr Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr Waize Ali Noor and Ms Shruti Dutt for UOI. Mr Vishal Sudan and Ms Prachi Tiwari for R-3. Mr J.Sai Deepak, Mr Guru Narang and Mr Avinash K. Sharma, Advocates for R-5. Ms Bitika Sharma, Ms Mansee Teotia and Ms Lakshay Kaushik, Advocates for R-7. CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU VIBHU BAKHRU, J JUDGMENT1 The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 08.11.2016 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (hereafter the Controller), W.P.(C) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-10-2019
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1223 OF2015RAKESH TIWARI, ADVOCATE APPELLANT VERSUS ALOK PANDEY, C.J.M. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The appellant, advocate, has been convicted for his undesirable conduct by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order under the Contempt of Courts Act and has been sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in case of non-payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. He has also been directed not to enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a period of six months w.e.f. 15.7.2015 and the contemnor shall remain under constant watch of the District Judge, Allahabad, for a period of two years; and in case of any objectionable conduct, causing interference in peaceful and smooth functioning of the court, the District Judge has been asked to report the matter to the High Court.2. The contemnor has be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-10-2019
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3934 OF2017RAM PARSHOTAM MITTAL & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS HOTEL QUEEN ROAD PVT. LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3935 OF2017JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The appeal arises out of the judgment dated 31.5.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi, setting aside an order dated 31.1.2006 passed by the Company Law Board in Company Petition No.64/2005.2. The backdrop facts indicate that the Government of India took a policy decision on 5.7.2002 to disinvest its shares in the Indian Tourism Development Corporation (in short, the ITDC) which owns various hotel properties; one of them being Indraprastha Hotel, formerly known as Hotel Ashok Yatri Niwas, (hereinafter referred to as the hotel).3. In terms of an approved scheme of Arrangement of Demerger the hotel was transferred to the Respondent No.1 Hotel Queen Road Pvt. 2 Ltd. (in short, HQRL) which was created as a Special Purpose Vehicle to enable ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-10-2019
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:29. h March, 2019 Date of decision:10. h May, 2019 SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD ..... Plaintiff CS (COMM) 622/2018 & I.A. 12663/2014 Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Devyati Nath and Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Advocates (M:98919. 9028). AJANTA PHARMA LTD ..... Defendant Through: Mr Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate, versus Mr. Jayant Mehta, Mr. Afzal B. Khan and Ms. Suhrita Majundar, Advocates (M:98818. 0037). CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J.1. Is the test for infringement and passing off for nutraceutical products the same as the test applicable for pharmaceuticals?.2. The dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the present case is in respect of two products used by patients of age related dimness of vision and diabetic retinopathy. They are sold under the trademarks GLOEYE and GLOTAB. Both are ocular medicines. Since they contain plant extracts, they are termed as nutraceuticals under Section 22...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-07-2019
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1123 OF2010ASHOKSINH JAYENDRASINH ..Appellant STATE OF GUJARAT ..Respondent VERSUS JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 05.03.2009 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2001 in and by which the High Court affirmed the conviction of appellant-accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him. The High Court also affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 25(c) of the Arms Act and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. The High Court acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 1 2. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are:- On 23.11.1997 at about 09.00 PM, accused Nos.1 to 5 along wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-07-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4666 OF2019(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.13571 of 2012) Arulmighu Nellukadai Mariamman Tirukkoil .Appellant(s) VERSUS Tamilarasi (Dead) By LRs. .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No.365 of 2009 whereby the High Court allowed the said second appeal filed by the original respondent 1 herein and set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2008 of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam in A.S. No.30/2008 and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant herein.3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short question.4. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff, who succeeded in the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court but lost in second appeal filed by the defendant (original respondent herein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-07-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * % + CS(COMM) No.271/2016 & IA No.12596/2016 (u/O VII R-11 CPC) Date of decision:7. h May, 2019 SOFTWARE ONE INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... PLsAINTIFF Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sahu, Adv. Versus C&S ELECTRIC LTD. ...DEFENDANT Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Nancy Roy & Mr. Rupin Bahl, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW The plaintiff has sued the defendant for recovery of Rs.1,18,55,172/ pleading that: (i) the plaintiff is a software licensing company; (ii) the defendant placed a purchase order dated 27th June, 2011 on the plaintiff seeking delivery of various software licenses of Microsoft from the plaintiff, for a period of three years, on year 1, year 2 and year 3 basis; (iii) under the said purchase order, the defendant was liable to pay license fee of Rs.52,75,531/- for each of the three years and the plaintiff was to deliver to the defendant software licenses of Microsoft on yearly basis for a consecutive period of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-06-2019
$~ * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:06. h May, 2019 + CS(COMM) 1288/2018 & I.As. 17103/2018, 1419/2019 RELAXO FOOTWEARS LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Pravin Anand, Mr.Saif Khan and Mr.Shobhit Agrawal, Advocates versus AQUALITE INDIA LTD. & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr.C.A. Brijesh, Mr.Peeyoosh Kalra, Mr.Rohan Seth, Mr.Dhruv Grover Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT I.A.17103/2018 1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, importing, exporting or in any manner dealing in the impugned product (Defendants product code: UFG145 or any product which is an obvious or fraudulent imitation of plaintiffs registered design No.294938. The plaintiff is also claiming till up rendition of accounts and damages from the defendants. In I.A.17103/2018, the plaintiff is seeking ad interim inj...
Tag this Judgment!