//
archives

Delhi High Court

This tag is associated with 79 posts

Land Acquisition – Sec.4 notifications – Sec.5 A objections – not considered award was passed – other claimants under same notification filed writs – allowed – pending in Apex court no stay – no possession was taken despite of passing of award – all slps were dismissed – Apex court held that A large number of cases filed before this court and particularly SLP (C) Nos. 208, 211 & 212 of 2008 stood dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2008, as the petitioners did not take steps to serve the respondents therein as is evident from the Office Report dated 25.6.2013. In such a fact scenario, where in respect of major chunk of land, the land acquisition proceedings had been quashed long back and which has attained finality, it is beyond our comprehension as to whether the scheme of planned development of Delhi can be executed at such a belated stage in view of the fact that vacant land in continuous stretch may not be available. In view of above, we do not see any force in these appeals even on merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. = Union of India & Ors. ` …. Appellants Versus Shiv Raj & Ors. …. Respondents = 2014 (April.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41528

 Land Acquisition – Sec.4 notifications – Sec.5 A objections – not considered award was passed – other claimants under same notification filed writs – allowed – pending in Apex court no stay – no possession was taken despite of passing of award – all slps were dismissed – Apex court held that A large number  of … Continue reading

Quashing of CRIMINAL CASE – STING OPERATION – The expression ‘sting operation’ seems to have emerged from the title of a popular movie called “The Sting” which was screened sometime in the year 1973. The movie was based on a somewhat complicated plot hatched by two persons to trick a third person into committing a crime. Being essentially a deceptive operation, though designed to nab a criminal, a sting operation raises certain moral and ethical questions. The victim, who is otherwise innocent, is lured into committing a crime on the assurance of absolute secrecy and confidentiality of the circumstances raising the potential question as to how such a victim can be held responsible for the crime which he would not have committed but for the enticement. Another issue that arises from such an operation is the fact that the means deployed to establish the commission of the crime itself involves a culpable act. – High court dismissed the petition for quash – Apex court confirmed the same = RAJAT PRASAD … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS C.B.I. … RESPONDENT (S) = 2014 ( April.Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41457

  Quashing of  CRIMINAL CASE – STING OPERATION – The expression ‘sting operation’ seems to have emerged from the  title of a popular movie called “The Sting” which was  screened  sometime  in  the year 1973.  The movie was based on a somewhat complicated  plot  hatched  by two persons to trick  a  third  person  into  committing  a  crime.    Being essentially a … Continue reading

Or. VIII, rule 1 C.P.C.- filing of written statement – time fixed in C.P.C – is only directory not mandatory – extention of time beyond the prescribed period – can be granted on sufficient cause – Rejection of the application is set aside – time granted on costs of Rs. 50,000/- = SANDEEP THAPAR …APPELLANT VERSUS SME TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED …RESPONDENTS = Published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41128

Or. VIII, rule 1 C.P.C.- filing of written statement – time fixed in C.P.C – is only directory not mandatory – extention of time beyond the prescribed period – can be granted on sufficient cause – Rejection of the application is set aside – time granted on costs of Rs. 50,000/- = The application of … Continue reading

Sec.377 of I.P.C. – constitutionally valid – Unnatural offences – Same sex marriage – Bombay high court declared the sec.377 as unconstitutional – Apex court set aside the orders of Bombay high court – and held that sec.377 is a valid one – marriage between same sex is an offence under sec.377 still – Notwithstanding this verdict, the competent legislature shall be free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Section 377 IPC from the statute book or amend the same as per the suggestion made by the Attorney General. = Suresh Kumar Koushal and another … Appellants versus NAZ Foundation and others … Respondents = published in/ Cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41070

Sec.377 of I.P.C. – constitutionally valid – Unnatural offences – Same sex marriage –     Bombay high court declared the sec.377 as unconstitutional – Apex court set aside the orders of Bombay high court – and held that  sec.377 is a valid one – marriage between same sex is an offence under sec.377 still … Continue reading

National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPCA) under the DPCO,1995, – the Drugs (Prices Control) Order (for short, ‘DPCO’) – Fixation of prices /Revised prices of the drugs manufactured & stocked by company by notification – Whether operative in respect of all sales subsequent to 15 days from the date of the notification by the Government in the official gazette/receipt of the price fixation order by the manufacturer – Karnataka High court held that it applies from the date of notification -that revised prices will not apply to the existing stocks but only to new batches of drugs and formulations to be manufactured after 15 days of the notification cannot be accepted. The provisions of the DPC Order are clear that prices should be revised within 15 days even in regard to the formulations which were manufactured prior to the date of notification or those manufactured within 15 days from the date of notification. – Delhi high court held that it applies only after 15 days of notification – Apex court held that Karnataka High court view is correct and Delhi High court view is incorrect – held that it applies only from the date of Notification to all sales & stocks = GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited (Formerly known as SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals (India) Limited) … Appellant Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41053

National  Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPCA) under the DPCO,1995, – the  Drugs      (Prices  Control)  Order  (for  short,  ‘DPCO’)  – Fixation of prices /Revised prices of the drugs manufactured & stocked by company by notification – Whether operative in respect of all sales subsequent  to 15 days from the date of the notification by the Government in the  official gazette/receipt of the price … Continue reading

Jurisdiction of TDSAT -Challenge to the Regulations framed under sec.36 of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act for rapid developement of Telecommunication – Apex court held that TDSAT has no jurisdiction – view taken by TDSAT and the Delhi High Court does not represent correct law. – aggrieved person shall be free to challenge the validity of the regulations framed under Section 36 of the Act by filing appropriate petition before the High Court. = Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited … Appellant versus Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and others … Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41056

Jurisdiction of TDSAT -Challenge to the Regulations framed under sec.36 of Telecom     Regulatory Authority of India Act for rapid developement of Telecommunication – Apex court held that TDSAT has no jurisdiction – view taken by TDSAT and  the Delhi High Court does not represent correct law. – aggrieved person shall be free to challenge  the  validity of the … Continue reading

Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC. -Anticipatory Bail – an absconder/proclaimed offender is not entitled for anticipatory bail – high court with out considering these facts granted anticipatory bail – set aside – appeal was allowed = State of Madhya Pradesh …. Appellant(s) Versus Pradeep Sharma …. Respondent(s) = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41048

Sections  302     and  120B  read  with  Section  34  of  IPC. –Anticipatory Bail – an absconder/proclaimed offender is not entitled for anticipatory bail – high court with out considering these facts granted anticipatory bail – set aside – appeal was allowed =        in Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 … Continue reading

Sec.163 – A , sec. 140 of M.V. Act – due to conflicte judgment over scope of sec. 163 -A in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shila Datta and others [(2011) 10 SCC 509], and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi [(2002) 7 SCC 456]. , it was referred to larger bench = United India Insurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Versus Sunil Kumar & Anr. … Respondents – Reported in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40914

Sec.163 – A , sec. 140 of M.V. Act – due to conflicte judgment over scope of sec. 163 -A in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shila Datta  and  others  [(2011)  10 SCC 509],  and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi  [(2002)  7  SCC  456]. , it was referred to larger bench   =    We are, therefore, of the … Continue reading

The original rectification application is for the removal of the Trade Mark “Hans Smart” registered under No.763522 in Class 6 under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Ans :- Allowed = M/s. K.L. Steels Pvt. Ltd., Having its office at Z-18, Naraina New Delhi-110028. …Applicant (Represented by Shri Sri Sachin Gupta ) Vs. 1. M/s.Hans Metal Pvt. Ltd., 123/528-A, Factory Area, Fasal Ganj, Kanpur. 2. Registrar of Trade Marks, Trade Mark Registry, New Delhi. … Respondents published in http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/207-2013.htm

The original rectification application is for the removal of the Trade Mark “Hans Smart” registered under No.763522 in Class 6 under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The applicants adopted and used the Trade Mark “Smart” since 01.04.1987.  On account of extensive marketing and continuous use, the trade mark ‘Smart’ has acquired formidable … Continue reading

Whether the registration is in contravention of the provisions of Sections 9 (1) (a) & 11 (1) (a) & (b) of the Act…..Ans:-No = M/s. Anuj Textiles Pvt. Limited, 8/5, Rup Chand Ray Street, Kolkatta – 700 001. …Applicant in all applications (Represented by Shri Debnath Ghosh & Gorgi Sen ) Vs. M/s. Anushree Textiles Pvt. Ltd., 14, Amratolla Street, Kolkata – 700 001. … Respondents in all applications (Represented by Shri Mittal Das Gupta) published in http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/209-2013.htm

As per Section 21 of the Act any person may oppose an application for registration.  As per Sections 47 and 57 of the Act, only a person aggrieved shall file an application for rectification.   Whether the registration is in contravention of the provisions of Sections 9 (1) (a) & 11 (1) (a) & (b) … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,358,812 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,892 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
Advertisements