Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-18-2019
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. h February, 2019. CS(COMM) 903/2018 & IA165862018 (u/O XXXIX R-4 CPC) CROCS INC. USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus AQUALITE INDIA LIMITED AND ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Peeyosh Kalra, Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Mr. Rohan Seth and Mr. Dhruv Grover, Advs. AND CS(COMM) 905/2016 & IA86062016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) CROCS INC USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Ms. Devyani Nath & Ms. Kaveri Jain, Advs. AND CS(COMM) Nos.903/2018, 905/2016, 906/2016, 1415/2016, 569/2017 & 571/2017 Page 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-18-2019
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. h February, 2019. CS(COMM) 903/2018 & IA165862018 (u/O XXXIX R-4 CPC) CROCS INC. USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus AQUALITE INDIA LIMITED AND ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Peeyosh Kalra, Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Mr. Rohan Seth and Mr. Dhruv Grover, Advs. AND CS(COMM) 905/2016 & IA86062016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) CROCS INC USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Ms. Devyani Nath & Ms. Kaveri Jain, Advs. AND CS(COMM) Nos.903/2018, 905/2016, 906/2016, 1415/2016, 569/2017 & 571/2017 Page 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-18-2019
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. h February, 2019. CS(COMM) 903/2018 & IA165862018 (u/O XXXIX R-4 CPC) CROCS INC. USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus AQUALITE INDIA LIMITED AND ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Peeyosh Kalra, Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Mr. Rohan Seth and Mr. Dhruv Grover, Advs. AND CS(COMM) 905/2016 & IA86062016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) CROCS INC USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Ms. Devyani Nath & Ms. Kaveri Jain, Advs. AND CS(COMM) Nos.903/2018, 905/2016, 906/2016, 1415/2016, 569/2017 & 571/2017 Page 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-18-2019
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. h February, 2019. CS(COMM) 903/2018 & IA165862018 (u/O XXXIX R-4 CPC) CROCS INC. USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus AQUALITE INDIA LIMITED AND ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Peeyosh Kalra, Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Mr. Rohan Seth and Mr. Dhruv Grover, Advs. AND CS(COMM) 905/2016 & IA86062016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) CROCS INC USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Ms. Devyani Nath & Ms. Kaveri Jain, Advs. AND CS(COMM) Nos.903/2018, 905/2016, 906/2016, 1415/2016, 569/2017 & 571/2017 Page 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-26-2019
$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Order:26. 02.2019 + F.A.O. No.75/2019 & C.M. Nos.8780-8781/2019 KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Ms. Rajeshwari H. & Mr. Kumar Chitranshu, Advocates. Versus VIKRAM JEET & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % ORDER2602.2019 F.A.O. No.75/2019 & C.M. No.8780/2019 (for stay) & C.M. No.8781/2019 (for appointment of Local Commissioner) 1. The impugned order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (ADJ) in Civil Suit being TM No.08/2019, dismissing two applications of the appellants/plaintiffs; one under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and another under Order XXVI Rule 9, is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. FAO752019 Page 1 of 14 2. As per the factual matrix, the appellants company has been in the business of manufacturing and selling Mineral RO Water Purifier S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-28-2019
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:18. h February, 2019 Pronounced on:28. h February, 2019 + LPA102019 & CM Nos. 566/2019 & 649/20 1. THE ASSOCIATED JOURNALS LTD & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. and Mr.Vivek Tankha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Devdatt Kamat, Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, Ms. Priyansha Indra Sharma, Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi, Ms. Madhavi Khanna, Mr. Nikhil Bhalla, Mr.Prashant, Mr. Ashwin G. Raj, Mr. Varun Chopra and Mr. Nishanth Patil, Advs. Versus LAND & DEVELOPMENT OFFICE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG with Mr.Rajesh Gogna, CGSC CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT Rajendra Menon, Chief Justice Seeking exception to a judgment dated 21st December, 2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.12133/2018 by the learned writ Court, this appeal is filed by the petitioner/appellant herein under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Courts Act, 1966.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-11-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 482/2003 IN THE MATTER OF: Reserved on:21. 1.2019 Date of decision:11. 3.2019 HIMMAT SINGH & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Pradeep Chowdhary and Mr. Vikrant Chowdhary, Advocates. versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for State. SI Suresh Kumar, P.S. Inderpuri. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI HIMA KOHLI, J.1. The three appellants, who are related to each other, being brothers, have challenged the judgment dated 4.7.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in case FIR No.33/2002 registered against them at P.S. Inderpuri under Section 3IPC whereunder appellant No.1, Himmat Singh @ Mangal has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and the appellant No.2, Rajesh and appellant No.3, Vinod have been convicted under Section 3IPC. The appellants are also aggrieved by the order on sentence dated 4.7.2003 whereunder they have been sentenced to undergo rigo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-13-2019
$~J * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:30. 01.2019 Judgment Pronounced on:13. 03.2019 CS(COMM) 1108/2018 INTERCITY HOTEL GMBH ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Peeyoosh Kalra, Mr.C.A.Brijesh, Mr.Dhruv Grover and Mr.Rohan Seth, Advs. Versus HOTEL INTERCITY DELHI & ORS Through Mr.Anil ..... Defendants Sapra, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Satish Kumar, Mr.Vishal Patel, Mr.Sarthak Katyal and Ms.Akanksha, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.IA No.12193/2018 1. This application is filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendants, their servants, partners etc. from using the mark HOTEL INTERCITY DELHI or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trademark INTERCITYHOTEL either as a trade mark/corporate name/domain name.2. The plaintiff has filed the accompanying suit for permanent injunction against infringement of trade mark, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-26-2019
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h March, 2019 CS(COMM) 10/2019 & IA No.259/2019 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) SURYA FOOD AND AGRO LIMITED .... Plaintiff Through: Mr. N. Mahabir and Mr. P.C. Arya, Advs. OM TRADERS & ANR. Versus ...Defendants Through: Mr. Hemant Sharma, Adv. for D-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The plaintiff has instituted this suit against the two defendants namely (i) Om Traders; and, (ii) Raja Udyog Private Limited (RUPL), for permanent injunction restraining selling, offering for sale any goods, advertising or promoting any product under the packaging, get up, trade dress of the defendants product BUTTER KRUNCH or any packaging, get up, trade dress which is similar to that of plaintiffs product BUTTER DELITE and likely to cause passing off and for ancillary reliefs.2. The suit came up first before this Court on 10th January, 2019, when though not finding any case of passing off to have been made out but observing that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-04-2019
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:4. h February, 2019 Decided on:4. h April, 2019 CRL.A. 990/2018 SHAMSHAD @ MURAPPAN & ORS. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Avinash Nandan Sharma, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 By the present appeal, Shamshad @ Murappan, Akram and Shahrukh @ Sharup Khan challenge the impugned judgment dated 5th July, 2018 convicting them for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part-II and 34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 7th July, 2018 directing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period six months for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II/34 IPC.2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellants have been convicted on the statement of the sole eye- witn...
Tag this Judgment!