Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :25. h March, 2014 Date of Decision:28. h May, 2014 % + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.615/2011 ASIF @ SHABBU STATE ..... Appellant Through Mr. R.S. Dakha and Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocates. versus ..... Respondent Through Mr. RajatKatyal, APP with Inspector Manoj Pant, SHO Gandhi Nagar. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.688/2011 NADEEM @ CHICKNA ..... Appellant Through Mr. Gurbaksh Singh and Ms. RichaSamhita, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. RajatKatyal, APP with Inspector Manoj Pant, SHO Gandhi Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J: The impugned judgment dated 31st March, 2011 convicts Asif @ Shabbu and Nadeem @ Chikna under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC, for short) and Section 392 read with Section 397/34 IPC.2. By order on sentence dated 6th April, 2011, the two appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-20-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided On :20. 03.2014 + W.P.(C) 6224/2013 M/S GLYPH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. J.K. Mittal, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Mukesh Anand, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The petitioner challenges the decision of the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) whereby it ruled that an appeal in respect of refund and rebate claims is not maintainable before it in view of Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act since it finds specific mention in Section 83 after its amendment in 2011.2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner is a service tax assessee. It made a refund claim in respect of service tax export turn-over. Aggrieved by an order refusing the refund, it preferred an appeal to the CESTAT under Section 86. The Tribunal by the order impugned in this case accepted the revenues cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-04-2014
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 510/2014 & CM No.1024/2014 Date of Decision:4. h February, 2014 YOGENDRA NATH Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Prabodh Kumar, Adv. versus COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN ..... Respondent Through Mr. S. Rajappa, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) 1. The petitioner before us assails the order dated 28.05.2013 passed in O.A. No.4605/2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby the order dated 07.01.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan under Article 81(b) of the Education Code, terminating the services of the petitioner and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 21.07.2010 were sustained.2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are in narrow compass. The petitioner was employed by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) as a post graduate teacher (English) and at the relevant time, posted...
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-23-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision :23. 04.2013 + CS(OS) 122/2011 CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms.Bitika Sharma and Ms.Anusuya Nigam, Advs. versus MEDIPOL PHARMACEUTICAL INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark PANTODAC, passing off, dilusion, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc. against the defendants.2. Summons in the suit and notice in the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 were issued on 01.02.2011 and on the same day an ex parte ad interim injunction was also granted in favour of the plaintiff whereby defendant no.1 was restrained from using the trademark PANDOPOL or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trademark PANTODAC. Written statement was filed by the defendants on 07.05.2011. Admiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-13-2014
$~16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision :13. h May, 2014 % + CS(OS) 253/2012 JOCKEY INTERNATIONAL INC AND ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through : Mr.Nischal Anand, Adv. versus R CHANDRA MOHAN AND ORS ..... Defendants Through : Mr.Jaspreet Singh, Adv. for D-1 to D-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for infringement of trademark, passing off, dilution, tarnishment, unfair competition, damages and rendition of accounts. Summons were issued in the suit on 01.02.2012. On an application for appointment of Local Commissioner moved by the plaintiffs, two Local Commissioners were appointed in the matter. Summons were issued to defendant No.6 on several dates and was finally served through publication. Despite service none appeared for defendant No.6, consequently defendant No.6 was proceeded ex parte on 20.03.2014.2. On 06.05.2014, plaintiffs and defendants No.4, 5 and 7 filed application under Order 23 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-22-2014
$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3755/2013 RAKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Archana Ramesh, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI ORDER % 22.07.2014 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 17th February, 2012 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal whereby the learned Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner on the ground that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the order dated 23rd April, 2004 passed by the respondents.2. Addressing arguments in support of the present petition, Ms. Archana Ramesh, counsel for the petitioner has taken a stand that the case of the petitioner relates to grant of disability pension which he has claimed from the date ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-26-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: September 26.09.2014 + CRL.A. 386/2011 BALJEET SINGH & ANR. Through ..... Appellants Mr.Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B. Badrinath, Advocate versus STATE Through + CRL.A. 486/2011 NIRMALA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State with Insp./SHO Raj Kumar & SI/IO Pradeep Kumar, PS Nangloi ..... Appellant Mr.N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Varun Deswal, Mr.Vaibhav Sharma, Advocates versus STATE OF DELHI Through ..... Respondent Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State with Insp./SHO Raj Kumar & SI/IO Pradeep Kumar, PS Nangloi Mr. Ashok Drall, Advocate for Complainant + CRL.A. 487/2011 RAJESH & ANR. Through versus STATE OF DELHI Through + CRL.A. 1080/2011 PUSHPA DEVI Through ..... Appellants Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, Advocate ..... Respondent Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State with Insp./SHO Raj Kumar & SI/IO Pradeep Kumar, PS Nangloi Mr. Ashok Drall, Advocate for Complainant ..... Appellant Mr. Ashok Drall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: July 21, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: July 24, 2014 % + CRL.A. 791/2000 SITA RAM Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Saurabh Kansal, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Three accused named Dhanvir, Chander Pal and Sita Ram (appellant) were jointly tried for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC as also for the offence punishable under Section 392/397/34 IPC and for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act.2. Vide decision dated February 27, 1998, the three accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. Pal and Sita Ram were found guilty Chander of the offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC as also for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Dhanvir was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 392/397/34 IPC as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-22-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:22. d August, 2014 + CS(OS) 170/2012 AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO & ORS. Through: Ms. Tanvi Misra, Advocate .... Plaintiff versus BABU LAL SHARMA & ANR Through: None ..... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, dilution of trademark, unfair competition, damages and delivery up.2. Summons were issued in the suit on 23.01.2012. Defendants entered appearance on 15.03.2012 and sought time to file written statement and reply to the interim application but no written statement was filed. None appeared for the defendants on 30.05.2012 and on 01.06.2012, consequently defendants were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 01.06.2012 and the interim order dated 23.01.2012 was made absolute.3. Plaintiffs have filed affidavit by way of evidence of the constituted attorney of plaintiffs, Col. ...
Tag this Judgment!