Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4396
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The common thread that weaves through the present petitions is the aspect of criminal culpability of persons undertaking 'sting' operations under the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The said revision petitions are filed against the order on framing charges. 2. On 05-11-2003, M/s. Dilip Singh Judeo (accused No. 1), the then Union Minister of State for Environment & Forests allegedly received illegal gratification in the sum of Rs. Nine lacs in the presence of his Additional Private Secretary (APS), Shri Natwar Rateria (accused No. 2) from one Shri Bhupinder Singh Patel @ Rahul (accused No. 3) as consideration for future 'favours' with regard to certain mining projects in the states of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa. The said incident had been secretly video recorded by accused No. 3 and one Shri Arvind Vijaymohan (accused No. 4) acquainted with accused No. 3 who arranged for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 148(2008)DLT598; LC2008(2)35; 2008(37)PTC71(Del)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. This order disposes of is 642/2008, an application seeking ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendant from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling and exporting the drug Erlotinib, for which the plaintiff holds a patent. Emergent notice was issued, and the parties filed their pleadings as well as documents in support of their contentions, in the suit and the interlocutory proceedings. The application was heard finally for disposal.I The suit1. The Plaintiffs in this suit seek permanent injunction restraining infringement of their patent rights in the drug Erlotinib, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up of the infringing goods.2. The first Plaintiff is a company organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland and has its principal office at Grenzacherstrasse, 124 CH 4070, Basel Switzerland. The second Plaintiff is a company organized and incorporated under the laws of the United States with its registered office at 41, Pinelawn Road, Melville,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 148(2008)DLT170; 2008(101)DRJ582
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this appeal filed under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of organized Crimes Act, 1999 (for short the MCOCA), the appellant seeks to assail the order on charge dated 12th October, 2006 and the charge dated 3-11-2006 whereby the learned Special Judge, MCOCA, New Delhi has charged the appellant under Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short the ITP Act), Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(4), 3(5) and Section 4 of the MCOCA and Section 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC in FIR No. 96/2005, Police Station Chanakya Puri.2. The brief facts as they emerge from the record are that on 19th April, 2005, SI Sajjan Singh, on receipt of information that the appellant Kamaljeet Singh and his associate Pappi supply girls for prostitution in Five Star Hotels and carry on their business through mobile No. 9810645454 9810645454 , passed on the said information to ACP Kumar Gyanesh, who directed SI Sajjan Singh to strike a deal on the above mobile numbe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(98)DRJ433
S.L. Bhayana, J.1. Petitioner has assailed the order and judgment dated 26.07.2005 in O.A. No 2320/04 and order dated 01.08.2006 in RA NO. 207/2005 in the above-mentioned O.A. passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. He has further sought quashing and setting aside of orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority passed against him. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has further prayed for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits including pay, salary, seniority, increments, promotions etc. 2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner joined the Delhi Police as Constable in the year 1998. He claims to have served the department with sincerity and to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. However, on 5.9.2003, he was arrested for alleged involvement in several criminal cases. FIRs in various police stations were registered against him. He was booked under various provisions of I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(2)ARBLR133(Delhi); 141(2007)DLT822
Gita Mittal, J.1. This petition raises two very interesting questions which are required to be answered. The first question raised is whether a party can seek interim relief on the ground that the other side has raised a dispute before the Arbitral Tribunal. The second question which has been raised by the respondent is to the effect that on account of sickness of its partner in a joint venture under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, the underlying shareholders agreement between the parties is rendered frustrated and incapable of implementation. Consequently, the petitioner cannot base a petition for prohibitory relief based on a clause in this agreement which prohibited the parties thereto from undertaking any business similar to that of the joint venture during its currency.2. So far as the basic facts are concerned, there is no material dispute and to the extent necessary, they are noticed hereinafter. The petitioner M/s Modi Rubber Ltd., (hereinafter referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(34)PTC370(Del)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff Mrs. Ishi Khosla founded `M/s. Whole Foods', which is a sole proprietorship firm of the plaintiff. It is engaged in the business of producing and retailing `healthy and healing food products' in India. It carries on business through various franchise outlets located at Gurgaon and Chandigarh. The plaintiff claims that she is a leading Health Counsellor and a former Senior Nutritionist with the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Center, New Delhi. She feels pride in bringing forth a unique concept of 'one-stop shop' which makes available and sells a wide range of `healthy and healing foods' to consumers through its `Whole Foods Shop' outlets located in major cities such as New Delhi, Chandigarh and Gurgaon. These foods include all foods that provide good nutrition and promote good health using minimum additives, preservatives and Chemicals and are not restricted to just low fat foods. Based on this belief she star...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 134(2006)DLT21
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association Multi State Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (in short referred to as `the Society),through Mr. K.C. Bajaj, impugning inter alias the order dated 10.2.2006, passed by the respondent No. 1, Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies holding that the representation dated 20.10.2005, received from respondents No. 2 to 6, members of the petitioner society to the effect that the elections held on 19.10.2005, to the Members of the Board of Directors of the society was conducted in contravention of the Act be admitted as an election dispute filed under Section 84(1) of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (in short referred to as `the Act') and appointing an Arbitrator to settle the disputes inter se respondents No. 2 to 6 and the petitioner society, as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 84 of the Act. Along with the writ petition, an i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 127(2006)DLT431; 2006(88)DRJ545
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This order shall dispose of is No.2061/2005 and is No. 4326/2005. The former application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC') wherein the plaintiff has prayed that the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit. The second application (IA No.4326/2005) has been filed on behalf of the defendants under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking permission of this Court for withdrawal of the statement made by the Senior Counsel for the defendants on 16.03.2005 before this Court. The other prayer made in this application is that the application filed by the plaintiff under Order under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of CPC (IA No. 2061/2005), be heard and disposed of. The statement made by the learned senior counsel on 16.03.2005 which the defendants seek to withdraw reads...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 124(2005)DLT371
R.C. Jain, J.1. These two criminal appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 24.5.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi, thereby, convicting the appellant L.K. Jain (for short to be referred as A-1) of the offence punishable under Sections 120-BIPC, Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act') and for the substantive offences punishable underSection 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Vide the same judgment, the appellant Balam Singh (hereinafter to be referred as A-2) has been convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 120-B IPC read with Section 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 Vide separate order of the even date, A-1 L.K. Jain has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac or in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)(3)SLJ118CAT
1. Canteen Mazdoor Sabha, represented through its President, and one more affected party have filed this O.A. seeking the following reliefs: "A. Call for the records of the case and quash/set aside the order dated 13.12.2001 (Annexure-h) and Order dated 20.3.2003 passed by the respondent No. 2 with further declaration that the applicant continued to be employee of Director General, Civil Aviation, Ministry of Civil Aviation till 3.5.1999 and their absorption in the National Airport Authority by impugned order dated 13.12.2001 by respondent No. 2 was illegal and hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act; B. Give further declaration that the persons mentioned in Para (ix) of the application have completed 10 years of service with the Director General, Civil Aviation, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi and are entitled to all other service/retiral benefits including pension; C. Give directions to the respondents to release arrears of benefit in view of the abovementio...
Tag this Judgment!