#delhi Archives - Page 3 of 17

6 Nov

First-Time Offender’s Sentence Reduced Due to Commitment to Reform and Lower Socio-Economic Status: High Court of Delhi

Prime Legal

Blog #accident, #delhi, #judgement, #law, #LegalPost

Title: Mohd Nasim vs. The State

Citation: CRL.REV.P.296/2017

Coram: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

Decided on: 3-11-2023

Introduction:

The present criminal revision petition has been filed under sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, along with section 482 of the same Code. This legal action aims to challenge and set aside three specific legal orders and judgments: The order dated 27.03.2017, referred to as “the impugned order,” issued by the District and Sessions Judge of East, Karkardooma Courts (referred to as “the appellate court”). The judgment dated 17.03.2016, referred to as “the impugned judgment.” The order on sentence dated 15.07.2016, issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate-03, East, Karkardooma Courts (referred to as “the trial court”).These orders and judgments pertain to a criminal case that arose from the FIR numbered 151/2009, registered under sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at PS Mandawli Fazad Pur. The purpose of this criminal revision petition is to seek a review and potentially set aside these legal decisions.

Facts:

The facts of the case are such that, The case pertains to an incident in 2009, where a road accident occurred involving a rickshaw used for carrying goods and a blue line bus with the registration number DL 1PB 9786 (referred to as “the offending vehicle”). The Investigating Officer, SI Yad Ram, arrived at the accident scene after receiving information about the incident. A statement from the complainant, Mohd. Sabir was recorded, in which he described that the rickshaw he was travelling in was hit from behind by the offending bus, driven in a rash and negligent manner.

As a result of the collision, the deceased, Mahesh, fell on the road, and the rear tire of the bus ran over him, causing injuries that led to his subsequent death during treatment. An FIR was registered based on the statement of the complainant, initially under sections 279/337 IPC, and later section 304A IPC was added due to the death of the deceased. The petitioner, identified as Mohd. Nasim was charged as the driver of the offending bus. The trial court conducted proceedings, and the prosecution presented its evidence, including 11 witnesses, including the complainant and the Investigating Officer. The petitioner pleaded innocence and claimed false implication during his statement.

The trial court, in its judgment, convicted the petitioner for offences under sections 279/304A IPC and imposed sentences, including imprisonment and compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner was also sentenced for an offence under section 279 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Court Analysis & Judgement:

The Court concluded that, The present First Information Report (FIR) dates back to 2009, and the petitioner has been involved in legal and judicial proceedings related to this FIR since then. The petitioner is described as a first-time offender with a clear criminal record. They belong to a lower socio-economic stratum and are the primary provider for their elderly parents. The legal heirs of the deceased in this case have already received compensation. The petitioner has expressed a commitment to reform themselves. The petitioner’s actions, characterized as rash and negligent driving, led to the untimely death of a young man. This incident caused irreparable loss to the victim’s family.

After considering all the facts, the court has decided that justice would be served by reducing the sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offence under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to simple imprisonment for six months. The remaining part of the sentence, as specified in the order on sentencing dated 15.07.2016, is to be maintained. The court has directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court on 20.11.2023 at 2:30 PM to serve the remaining portion of the sentence. The judgment is to be provided to the petitioner and sent to the relevant trial court for their information.

The present petition, along with any pending applications, has been decided and disposed of accordingly.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgements

2 Nov

State to ensure rigorous enforcement of prohibition of slow moving vehicles on Delhi NCT expressways – Delhi High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #expressway, #HighCourt, #law, #LegalPost, #traffic

Coram : Chief Justice Sanjeev Narula

Order date : 17^th October, 2023

Introduction :

A PIL was filed in the hon’ble Delhi High Court to address concerns over slow moving vehicles on the expressway prohibiting high-speed throughfare.

Facts:

The PIL filed by the petitioner stated that the purpose of the expressway is deteriorated when the slow moving vehicles clogs the roads and also jeopardizes public safety. The PIL intrinsically connects the right to safer travel with that of broad interpretation of right to life and personal liberty.

It was observed that the genesis of the PIL can be traced back to the petitioner’s personal experiences who has been commuting in the Delhi-Gurugram Expressway which is a segment of NH-48. The petitioner claims that the presence of slow moving vehicles in the expressway has significantly increased and has caused multitude of accidents resulting in loss of life and property damage. The petitioner had approached various authorities such as the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) who has confirmed the prohibition of slow moving vehicles. NHAI came with an agreement with DCP- Gurugram (respondents 5) which stated that vehicles like tractors, carts, and two-three wheelers are explicitly barred.

NHAI reports between 2017-2022 produced data that 31 fatalities have been caused because of slow moving vehicles along with 137 grave accidents in the expressway. The petitioner also refers to the HC of Karnataka which refrained two wheelers to use highways and insisted on using the service roads. The petitioner has filed the PIL on the ground that there is a lack of adherence to traffic norms and road regulations.

Courts Analysis and Judgement:

The court took cognizance of the issue and stated that it is of utmost importance to ensure that traffic rules and regulations are strictly enforced. The court also noticed that the NHAI has observed the alarmingly increasing slow moving vehicles in the expressway causing frequent accidents.

It was stated that that the prohibition of two-wheelers, three-wheelers, tractors and animal driven vehicles are done primarily to ensure the safety of all road users and use the express way effectively. It has been noted that there is a regulatory framework for providing safety measures but the problem persists in the enforcement and adherence.

The court directed the state to rigorously enforce the existing prohibitions with respect to slow moving vehicles. In furtherance, it was held that providing an additional specific lane would be filled with complexities upon the policy considerations.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

19 Oct

The Brand SEVEN HOURS using the branding similar to RED BULL’S allowed to dispose of the allready produced cans subjected to the payment of Rs.13 Lakhs to Red Bull: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Prime Legal

Blog # patent, #copyright, #delhi, #energy Drink, #Red Bull

Title: RED BULL AG V ROHIDAS POPAT KAPADNIS & ANR.

CS(COMM) 512/2023 & I.A. 20372/2023

Decided on: 16/10/2023

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Pratibha M. Singh

Introduction:

In the present case, Plaintiff is the energy drink company RED BULL, aggrieved by the Defendant’s adoption of an identical silver and blue colour combination for identical energy drinks. The Defendants are manufacturing and marketing the said energy drink under the mark ‘SEVEN HOURS’.

Facts:

The dispute is regarding the use of the silver and blue colour combination by the defendant for their identical energy drinks. The defendant is manufacturing and marketing the said energy drink under the mark ‘SEVEN HOURS’. Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, the plaintiff’s counsel submitted that in past, the colour combination of blue and silver for energy drinks has been protected by the courts in various orders. The marks of the plaintiff include ‘RED BULL’, ‘BULL’ , the double BULL device, single BULL device as also the blue and silver colour combination in a trapezial design. The case of the plaintiff is that the blue and silver colour combination in the distinctive layout and arrangement is exclusively associated with the plaintiff.

On the same case previously an ex parte injunction was granted on 1st August, 2023 and a Local Commissioner was also appointed directing seizure and defendant was told to deposit Rs. 3 Lakhs to Registrar general of the court. The Defendants have moved this present application for further consideration. It is the submission of the Defendants that unfilled cans are also quite expensive and the Defendants have been selling these products since 2021.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The Court sated that the defendant has been using the cans for last 2 years so they can be given the permission to fill the unfilled cans and sell the same, during usual course of business, But this approval is subjected to the condition of paying Rs.10 Lakhs addition to the previous Rs.3 Lakhs to the plaintiff for the loss faced by them.

After this no further products shall be sold by the Defendants under the infringing marks and labels except the filled and unfilled cans which were seized by the Local Commissioner. The unfilled cans which have been seized, shall be released in favour of the Defendants, which were given to them on superdari basis, in the presence of a representative of the Plaintiff. Further the court held that Defendant’s trademark applications bearing nos. 5683132 and 5598032 shall stand withdrawn. The Registrar of Trademarks shall reflect the same on its website within four weeks from receipt of the order.

Written By : Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

1 Oct

Delhi High Court Navigates Quorum Quandaries and Remedies in PMLA Appeals

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #moneylaundering, #pmla, #quorum

Case Title: Gold Croft Properties Pvt Ltd vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Date of Decision: 19th September 2023

Case Number: LPA 167/2023

Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad

Introduction

This case involves an appeal against a judgment passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition. The appellant, Gold Croft Properties Pvt Ltd, challenged an order by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which denied their application for deferment of proceedings. The appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority was not properly constituted at the time. This appeal aims to contest the Single Judge’s decision upholding the Adjudicating Authority’s order.

Factual Background

The case arose when the State Bank of India filed a complaint in August 2020 alleging the diversion of funds by the accused for purposes other than those the funds were availed for. An FIR was subsequently registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in February 2022 for various offenses. The appellant was not initially named as an accused in this FIR. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an ECIR against the appellant and others, followed by a Provisional Attachment Order in September 2022. The ED filed a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority in October 2022 for the confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order.

The appellant also mentioned that a chargesheet related to the predicate offense had been filed by the CBI. The appellant then filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority, which is the subject of this appeal, arguing that the Adjudicating Authority lacked a proper quorum as required under the PMLA and that they had not been supplied with a copy of ‘Reasons to Believe’ by the ED, which led to the Provisional Attachment Order.

Legal Issues

Whether the Adjudicating Authority had the required quorum under the PMLA.
Whether the appellant should have approached the Appellate Tribunal instead of filing a writ petition.
Whether the application for deferment of proceedings was maintainable.
Whether the Provisional Attachment Order was justified under the PMLA.

Contentions

Appellant’s Argument: The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority lacked the required quorum as specified under the PMLA. They also contended that their application should not have been rejected without a proper hearing, and a single-member bench was not in accordance with the PMLA.
Respondent’s Argument: The ED argued that the application was not maintainable, as the Appellate Tribunal provided an alternative remedy. They also defended the validity of the Provisional Attachment Order and the composition of the Adjudicating Authority.

Observation and Analysis

The court reviewed the Provisional Attachment Order and the complaint, finding that the Order was based on a detailed analysis of various documents and materials. It concluded that the Adjudicating Authority had sufficient grounds to believe that the appellant possessed proceeds of crime.

The court also clarified that the PMLA allows for the formation of single-member benches, citing precedent from an earlier case (J Sekar vs. Union of India & Ors). The application filed by the appellant requesting a two-member bench was deemed not maintainable.

Decision of the Court

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of the Single Judge, and found that the writ petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable. It held that the appellant should have pursued the statutory remedies provided by the PMLA, including the option to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

29 Sep

Delhi High Court Clarifies MSME Act’s Applicability: Timing of Registration Matters

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #msme

Case Title: JKS Infrastructure Private Limited v. MSME Facilitation Council and Others

Date of Decision: 18th September 2023

Case Number: W.P.(C) 16567/2022

Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Introduction

This case involves a petition filed by JKS Infrastructure Private Limited (the petitioner) seeking an order to set aside a reference made by the MSME Facilitation Council (Respondent No.1) under section 18(2) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act), and subsequent proceedings initiated based on the said reference. The dispute arose between the petitioner and Lamba Techno Flooring Solutions (Respondent No.3), leading to a reference to arbitration.

Facts

The petitioner, JKS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition seeking the setting aside of the reference UDYAM-DL-10-0032365/M/00003 dated 10th September 2022, made by Respondent No.1 (MSME Facilitation Council) under section 18(2) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act).
The dispute arose between the petitioner and Respondent No.3 (Lamba Techno Flooring Solutions), which led to a reference to arbitration by Respondent No.1.
The petitioner argued that the MSME Act did not apply as the purchase order and invoice between the petitioner and Respondent No.3 were dated before Respondent No.3’s registration as an MSME on 8th February 2021.

Legal Issue

Whether the MSME Act is applicable when the registration as an MSME occurred after the completion of the works or services?

Contentions

The petitioner contends that the MSME Act does not apply because the purchase order and invoice were dated before Respondent No.3’s registration as an MSME. This argument is based on the timing of registration relative to the contract.

Legal Principles

Registration under the MSME Act must occur before entering into a contract for the benefits of the Act to apply retroactively.
The registration’s timing determines the Act’s applicability to goods and services supplied, with the Act applying only prospectively to post-registration supplies.

Observation and Analysis

The Court considered recent judgments in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Prakash, and M/s. Grand Mumtaz Hotel v. Deputy Commissioner North East Government of NCT of Delhi to resolve the legal issue. These judgments emphasized that registration under the MSME Act must occur before the contract and supply of goods or services for the Act’s benefits to apply. Registration after the fact does not grant retrospective benefits under the MSME Act.

Decision of the Court

In light of the legal precedent established in the aforementioned judgments, the Court ruled that if registration under the MSME Act occurs after the completion of works or the execution of the contract, the Act would not be applicable. Therefore, the impugned references were quashed. Respondents were advised to pursue remedies in accordance with the law.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

1 2 3 4 5 … 17