Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:12. h March, 2015 Date of Decision:16. h April, 2015 % + CRL. A. 358/2014 STATE Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Goswami, APP & Mr. Anindya Malhotra, Advocate. versus BRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN KUMAR & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sudeep Passbola & Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH JUDGMENT1 This is an appeal under Section 12 of The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as MCOCA) directed against the judgment and order dated 05.02.2014 passed by the Court of learned ASJ-01 (Special Judge MCOCA), New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in SC No.139/13 pertaining to FIR No.10/13 under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA registered at P.S. Special Cell, New Delhi whereby the learned Special Judge discharged the respondents/accused persons from the said charges.2. Succinctl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Crl. Rev. No.443/2009 & Crl.M.A.No.3071/2010 Date of Decision:12. h August, 2014 DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE ..Petitioner Through : Mr. V. Madhukar, Mr. Paritosh Anil, Mr. Jayendra, Mr. V. Bhatt, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. appointed as Amicus Curiae VERSUS UOI & ANR. Through: ....Respondents Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State. Mr. Amit Chadha, Adv. for applicant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL GITA MITTAL, J It is highly deplorable and heart-rending to note that many poverty stricken children and girls in the prime of youth are taken to 'flesh market' and forcibly pushed into the 'flesh trade' which is being carried on in utter violation of all cannons of morality, decency and dignity of humankind. There cannot be two opinionsindeed there is nonethat this obnoxious and abominable crime Crl Rev.No.443/2009 & Crl.M.A.No.3071/2010 1 committed with all kinds of unthinkable vulgarity should be eradicated at all levels by dras...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. By W.P.(CRL) Nos. 1555/2011 and 1556/2011 the Petitioner challenges the order dated 18th October, 2011 granting prior approval by the DIG CBI for invoking the provisions of Section 3 of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 ( in short the MCOCA) against the Petitioner in RC/219/2011/E0007 and RC/219/2011/E0008 as illegal. Vide W.P.(CRL) Nos. 242/2012 and 243/2012 the Petitioner challenges the order dated 30th November, 2011 passed by the Learned Designated Court remanding the Petitioner to judicial custody under MCOCA under Section 23(1)(a) in the abovementioned RC Numbers. Vide W.P.(CRL) Nos. 244/2012 and 245/2012 the Petitioner challenges the order dated 14th January, 2012 passed by the DIG CBI according prior approval for invoking the provisions of Section 3 MCOCA under Section 23(1)(a) in RC/219/2011/E009 and RC/219/2011/E0010 respectively. 2. The two principal contentions of learned counsel for the Petitioner are that for the same set of charge-sheet MCOCA has been i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1986(11)DRJ164
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) By this petition seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner, P C. Agarwal. challenges the detention order passed on 30th December, 1985 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He is further seeking quashing of a declaration under Section 9 of the Act made on 3rd February, 1986 The said order and the declaration were passed by Shri M.L Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India (Respondent No. I herein) who is specially empowered under the provisions of the Act on behalf of the Central Government to pass the detention order and also to make the said declaration.(2) The order of detention was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods and abelting the smuggling of goods. A copy of that order is Annexure 'A' to the Writ petition.(3) In the writ petition the virus of Section 9 of the Act ha(r) been challenge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2000(55)DRJ681; [2000(86)FLR705]; (2000)IILLJ436Del
J.B. Goel, J.1. By this order, plaintiff's application LA. 11116/98 (under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC) and defendants, application LA. 2964/99 (under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC) filed in a suit for injunction are being disposed of. 2. Plaintiff is a Stock Exchange duly recognised/licensed under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 having a strength of about 185 employees. Defendant No. 1 is a union of its employees, defendants No. 2 and 3 are its President and General Secretary while defendants No. 4 to 17 are some of its members. In the suit, the plaintiff has alleged that the defendants have been illegally and unjustifiably holding demonstrations, shouting slogans, indulging in illegal and unjustified activities of gherao, sabotage, manhandling and causing blockage to the ingress and egress threatening the managers, brokers, investors, general public and willing employees to press their illegal and unjustified demands during trading hours and have also been threatening to cause dam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:02. 07.2019 + OMP (COMM) 16/2017 & IA No.528/2017 NTPC LIMITED ........ Petitioner versus VOITH HYDRO JOINT VENTURE Advocates who appeared in these cases: ..... Respondent For the... Petitioner: Mr Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr Ashish Kumar and Ms Shantanu Sharma. For the Respondent: Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate, Mr Ciccu Mukhapadhaya, Sr. Advocate with Mr Omar Ahmad, Mr Vikram Shah and Mr Ishan Gaur. CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner (hereafter NTPC) has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the A&C Act) impugning the arbitral award dated 23.08.2016 (hereafter the impugned award) rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal (by majority) comprising of Professor Dr. Albert Jan Van Den Berg (Presiding Arbitrator), Mr Michael Black, QC (Co-Arbitrator) and Justice (Retd.) G. N. Ray (Co-Arbitrator). The arbitral award was rend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : LC2007(1)323; 2007(34)PTC201(Del)
Gita Mittal, J.1. The plaintiff before this Court is a company limited by guarantee and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is also registered as a Copyright Society under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957. On allegations that the defendants have committed flagrant violation of the rights of the plaintiff in the works assigned to him by numerous members, the plaintiff has sought the following relief in the present suit:a) An order for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its agents, employees and all others acting on its behalf from playing of music by live or any other means, or by way of mechanical devices at the hotel operated by the Defendants and /or channeling musical and or literary works of the plaintiff or those of its sister copyright societies, by way of mechanical devices such as Radio, Cable TV and /or RA. systems within the Defendants' premises without obtaining a license from the plaintiff Society and without paying the requisite royalties, there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on:01. t November, 2017 Pronounced on:13. h November, 2017 CS(COMM) 1492/2016 & IA No.26197/2015 + HELAMIN TECHNOLOGY HOLDING SA & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through : Mr.Pravin Anand, Ms.Abhilasha Nautiyal and Ms.Pankhuri Malik, Advocates. versus HARIBANSH RAI & ORS ..... Defendants Through : None being ex parte. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA YOGESH KHANNA, J.1. Brief facts of the case as per the plaint are:-"a) that the plaintiff No.1 is a limited Company Incorporated under the laws of Switzerland and is the world leader in development, production and marketing of specific scale corrosion inhibitors used in water-steam and heating circuits/steam generators, warm and hot water networks, boilers, turbines, cooling systems etc. The plaintiff No.1 began its commercial operations in 1986 when the trademark and the name 'HELAMIN' was first used in the course of trade; CS (COMM) No.1492/2016 Page 1 of 13 b) plaintiff No.2 is the w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on - 09.01.2018. Date of Decision - 25.04.2018. + W.P.(C) 934/2012 & C.M. No.18315/2014 SUDHIR VOHRA ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Amit Bhagat, Adv with Ms. Sonali Chopra, Adv. versus REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ORS ..... Respondent Through Ms. Suparna Srivastava, CGSC with Mr. Tushar Mathur, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Milanka Chaudhary, Adv. with Mr. Siddarth Mehra, Adv. for BDP Design. Mr. Naseem R. Nath, Adv. with Mr. Abhimanyu Verma, Adv. for R-3. Mr. Sunil Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. H.S. Chandhoke, Mr. Prashant Mishra & Ms. Jomol, Advs. for R-6. Mr. Anish Dayal with Mr. SiddharthVaid & Ms. Rupam Sharma, Advs. for Intervener in C.M. No.14122/2013. + W.P.(C) 3975/2012 & C.M. Nos.4055/2013 & 15336/2017 ANIL KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Amit Bhagat, Adv. with Ms. Sonali Chopra, Adv. versus WP (C) No.934/2012& conn. Page 1 of 46 THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Ms. Anumi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest Yes 1. The petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus under article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting the petitioner at liberty after quashing the detention order dated 02.06.2010 bearing no. 673/06/2010-Cus.VIII passed by the respondent no.2 (Jt Secy to Govt of India, Ministry of Finance, Dept of Revenue, CEIB, New Delhi) under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act'). Points in issue:2. Mr B. Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenged the impugned detention order and continued detention of the petitioner on the following five points:-1. The petitioner was already in custody under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the N...
Tag this Judgment!