Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-05-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: September 13, 2018 Judgment delivered on: April 05, 2019 + W.P.(C) 9864/2017, CM No.40141/2017 M/S STELLING TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. (RAILYATRI.IN) AND ANR. Through: Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with ........ Petitioners Mr. Hardeep Singh Anand, Mr. Jiten Mehra, Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Mr. Anand Daga, Ms. Gunjan Ahuja and Mr. Iqram Govind Singh, Advs. for R3. versus INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nikhil Majithia, Adv. for IRCTC AND + W.P.(C) 8562/2017, CM No.35240/2017 MR. ANAND PUROHIT ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mandeep Singh Vinaik, Mr. Yuvraj Sharma and Ms. Sneh Suman, Advs. Versus INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Nikhil Majithia, Adv. for IRCTC. Mr. Arjun Garg and Mr. Manish Yadav, Advs. for R2. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Hardeep Singh Anand, Mr. Jiten Mehra, Ms. Van...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-05-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 353/2003 IN THE MATTER OF: Reserved on:13. 02.2019 Date of decision:05. 04.2019 JAGRAJ SINGH alias RAJAN BHAIYA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikram Panwar and Mr. Vikas Walia, Advocates. versus Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, APP for State. ..... Respondent STATE OF DELHI CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI HIMA KOHLI, J.1. A limited question that has come up for consideration in the present appeal, arising from Sessions Case No.185/2001, in FIR No.301/2000, PS Patel Nagar, is as to whether the conviction of the appellant vide impugned judgment dated 21.4.2003, under Section 302 IPC and the order on sentence dated 22.4.2003, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years, is liable to be upheld or he deserves to be held guilty for the commi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-10-2019
$ * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL. L.P. 153/2019 Judgment reserved on:28. h March, 2019 Judgment pronounced on:10. h April, 2019 STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ....Appellant Through: Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP for State with SI Suresh Chand, PS Kirti Nagar Versus JEEVAN SINGH ....Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL1 By this petition under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter as Cr.P.C), the appellant/State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 30.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 01, Special Court, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter as IPC) in FIR No.248/2012, Police Station Kirti Nagar. CRL.L.P. 153/2019 Page 1 of 24 2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Learned Trial Court, are as under:-"i.Prosecution case unveils with DD No.37A dated 20.08.2012 being recorded regard...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-10-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:11. 12.2018 Pronounced on:10. 04.2019 + W.P.(C) 11467/2018, CM APPL. 44376-44378/2018 MAHINDRA ELECTRIC MOBILITY LIMITED AND ANR. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ....... RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioners ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner ....... RESPONDENTS versus versus TATA MOTORS LIMITED & ANR COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA versus MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS + W.P.(C) 6610/2014 + W.P.(C) 6634/2014, CM APPL. 20409/2014 + W.P.(C) 7087/2014, CM APPL. 16614/2014, CM APPL. 39827/2018 + W.P.(C) 7121/2014, CM APPL. 16680/2014, CM APPL. 31959/2018 + W.P.(C) 7186/2014, CM APPL. 16889/2014 + W.P.(C) 7306/2014, CM APPL. 17096/2014 + W.P.(C) 7321/2014, CM APPL. 17118/2014 SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD UNION OF INDIA & ORS. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT LT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-10-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: April 10, 2019 CRL.M.C. 1924/2019 PANKAJ UPPAL & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Naval Jha, Advocate Versus THE STATE & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor with ASI Gian Chand. Mr. Lalit Yadav and Mr. Anil Thakur, Advocates with respondent No.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) CRL.M.A.7629/2019 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 1924/2019 Quashing of FIR No.76/2015, under Sections 498-A/4of IPC, registered at police station Nanakpura, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of 20th July, 2018 (Annexure P-3). Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is the complainant/first-informant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by ASI Gian Chand on the basis of identity proof produced by her. CRL.M.C. 1924/2019 Page 1 of 3 R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-16-2019
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on:26. h March, 2019 Pronounced on:16. h April, 2019 + RC.REV. 309/2018, CM Appl. No.27327/2018 RAMESH CHAND ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Rajat Aneja, Ms.Chandrika Gupta, Advocates. versus SHYAMA ARORA Through Mr.Gaurav Advocate. ..... Respondent Singh, Kumar CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA YOGESH KHANNA, J.1. This petition challenges the impugned order dated 07.04.2018 whereby the eviction petition filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed after evidence. Before coming to the issues raised it would be appropriate to state few facts.2. The petitioner herein filed an eviction petition in respect of a shop at No.97, Block-D, Gali No.6, Shashi Garden, Patparganj, Delhi. The said premises is required by the petitioner for his daughter in law to start a garment business.3. Admittedly the petitioner has two sons and three daughters; all are since married. The petitioner is a senior citizen of 65 years of age and has a meag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-29-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Reserved on:3. d April, 2019 Pronounced on:29th April, 2019 CS (COMM) 313/2018 M/S PARIDHI UDYOG ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Umesh Mishra, Adv. JAGDEV RAJ SARWAN RAM DHIMAN versus ..... Defendant Through: Ms. RajdipaBehura, Advocate with Mr. PhilomonKani and Ms. Kirti Handa, Advocates JUDGMENT SANJEEV NARULA, J1 The present suit concerns Plaintiff's intellectual property rights in its registered trademark AADHAR SHREE [label].. Case of the Plaintiff 2. Plaintiff, a partnership firm is the registered proprietor of the trademark AADHAR SHREE (Label) in Class 19. The firm is manufacturing and marketing Plaster of Paris and Plaster Sheets bearing Trademark AADHAR SHREE. Plaintiff adopted and conceived the said mark in the year 2005 and has been using the same since then. It is claimed by the... Petitioner that the goods bearing the afore-noted trade mark have acquired distinctiveness, substantial goodwill and reputation amongst the consumers bec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-02-2019
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:02. 05.2019 + W.P.(C) 6468/2012 NARESH KUMAR SHARMA & ANR Through None. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.Nikhil Bhardwaj, Adv. for R-1. Dr.Harsh Mr.Siddharth Shukla, Adv. for R-3. Pathak, Adv. with CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek direction as under:-"i. The respondents to formulate guidelines/rules/procedures for effective functioning, implementation and convening of the functions, duties and obligation of the respondent No.2; ii.... RESPONDENTS to provide requisite infrastructure for training, preparing, boarding and lodging facilities to the athletes representing India in international events; iii. Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 to submit the report of the action WP (C) 6468/2012 Page 1 of 9 taken against the erring officials of the Respondent No.2 for committing the overt a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-06-2019
~ * + % 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 851/2017 Reserved on:4. h August, 2018 Pronounced on:6. h May, 2019 PRAVESH DIXIT @ TINDA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K. Singhal and Mr. Nishant Bhardwaj, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP for State with SI A. Negi, PS Dwarka South CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT The appellant Pravesh Dixit @ Tinda stands convicted, vide judgment dated 23rd February, 2017, under Sections 367 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, having been found guilty of subjecting a child, 17 years and 4 months of age (who would be referred to, hereinafter, as X), to penetrative sexual assault. Consequent thereto, the appellant has, vide subsequent order dated 27th April, 2017, been sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment (RI), for commission of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCS...
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!