Delhi High Court lifts ban on sale of OnePlus smartphones

A bench headed by Justice Pradeep Nandrajog while setting aside the single judge's order restraining Chinese phonemaker Shenzhen OnePlus Technology Co Ltd from selling its mobiles on the plea of Micromax, said that it was not a case for grant of an ad-interim injunction as "prima-facie neither (company) competes nor eats into the territory of the other".
  
It directed Shenzhen and US-based software firm Cyanogen, which in a lighter vein was referred to as a "villain" in the instant case by the bench, to file their replies on Micromax' application for interim stay, saying the parties needed to be given an opportunity to file their pleadings.
  
The bench observed it was not proper of the single judge to finally decide the application without giving the parties time to file their pleadings.

Source: Gadget Reviews India and view more  Automotive News

Our Operating System is different from Micromax: OnePlus to HC

Shenzhen was recently restrained by the High Court from selling its devices in India on Gurgaon-based phonemaker Micromax Informatics Ltd's plea that its exclusive rights were being infringed by the Chinese company.
  
The Chinese company said that while its handsets were embedded with the CM11S version of the Cyanogen software, Micromax had a different version, and added that this point was not submitted before the single judge who had passed the restraining order.
  
It also argued before a bench, headed by Justice Pradeep Nandrajog, that the exclusivity clause in the agreement between Micromax and US-based software firm Cyanogen only means that Cyanogen cannot collaborate with any another mobile maker in India.
  
"It does not mean that we cannot do business," senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Shenzhen, said.
    

Source: Gadget Reviews India and view more  Automotive News

Delhi HC allows Xiaomi to sell Qualcomm-based handsets till 8th January

In an interim order, the High Court had on December 8 restrained Xiaomi as well as online e-commerce site Flipkart from selling in India handsets of the Chinese mobile maker that run on the technology patented by Swedish technology company Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.
  
A bench headed by Justice Pradeep Nandrajog today passed the "pro tem order" as Xiaomi had contended that Ericsson suppressed the fact that the Chinese mobile maker has also used chipsets of Qualcomm which has a licence to use patents of the Swedish company.
  
Xiaomi sells its handsets exclusively through e-commerce site Flipkart on every Tuesday, the court was told during the proceedings.
  
The bench was also told by senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Ajit Warrier, appearing for Xiaomi, that on each Tuesday around one lakh units are expected to be sold on the site.
  
Therefore, as part of the "pro tem" or temporary measures, the bench asked Xiaomi to deposit Rs 100 per handset sold, towards royalty, in favour of the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court and the amount so deposited be kept in a fixed deposit.

Source: Gadget Reviews India and view more Automotive News

HC seeks EC, Kejriwal's response on plea for AAP derecognition

While issuing notice to Kejriwal and six of his party members, Justice Manmohan directed them to file their response within four weeks.
  
It also asked Election Commission of India (ECI) to file a counter affidavit within four weeks.
  
Rejoinder affidavit from the petitioner, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing, it said.
  
The court notice came on a plea filed by Janraajya Party, an unrecognised political party, which sought directions to the ECI to decide the issue of "whether or not AAP has indeed committed fraud and forgery while submitting the mandatory 100 affidavits of founding members to the poll panel at the time of its registration".
  
Advocates Lohitaksha Shukla and Raghav Awasthi, who filed the petition on behalf of Janraajya Party, submitted that the ECI instead of taking any action informed the petitioner that since the matter involves a criminal offence of forgery, it would not initiate any action until the police completes its investigation.

Source: Latest Photos and Latest Videos ,  Cricket Full Scoreboard

Delhi Gangrape Convicts Punishment Remains The Same

दिल्ली गैंगरेप मामले में हाईकोर्ट ने निचली अदालत के उस आदेश को बरक़रार रखा है जिसमें सभी दोषियों को मौत की सज़ा सुनाई गई थी. इस मामले के एक अभियुक्त की मौत हो चुकी है और एक अन्य नाबालिग़ दोषी को तीन साल की सज़ा सुनाई जा चुकी है.

दिल्ली गैंगरेप मामले में हाईकोर्ट ने निचली अदालत के उस आदेश को बरक़रार रखा है जिसमें सभी दोषियों को मौत की सज़ा सुनाई गई थी. इस मामले के एक अभियुक्त की मौत हो चुकी है और एक अन्य नाबालिग़ दोषी को तीन साल की सज़ा सुनाई जा चुकी है.

निचली अदालत ने दिल्ली गैंगरेप मामले में चार दोषियों विनय शर्मा, पवन गुप्ता, मुकेश सिंह और अक्षय ठाकुर को मौत की सज़ा सुनाई थी. इसके बाद दोषियों के वकीलों ने दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट में राहत के लिए गुहार लगाई, हालांकि हाई कोर्ट से उन्हें किसी तरह की राहत नहीं मिल सकी है.

इस मामले के एक अभियुक्त राम सिंह की तिहाड़ जेल में मौत हो चुकी है और एक अन्य नाबालिग़ दोषी को तीन साल की सज़ा पहले ही सुनाई जा चुकी है.

दिल्ली में 16 दिसंबर 2012 को चलती बस में एक मेडिकल छात्रा के साथ सामूहिक बलात्कार के इस मामले ने पूरे देश को हिला कर रख दिया था.

इन चारों पर सामूहिक बलात्कार, हत्या, हत्या के प्रयास, अप्राकृतिक कृत्य, सुबूत मिटाने और डकैती के आरोप थे.

सुप्रीम कोर्ट में अपील

निचली अदालत ने 13 सितंबर को चारों आरोपियों को दोषी पाया था और उन्हें मौत की सजा सुनाई थी.

इसके बाद दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट में न्यायमूर्ति रीवा खेत्रपाल और न्यायमूर्ति प्रतिभा रानी की पीठ ने इस मामले की रोजाना सुनवाई की. इस दौरान सरकारी वकील ने दलील दी कि इन दोषियों को अधिकतम सजा देने से समाज में यह संदेश जाएगा कि इस तरह के विकृत व्यवहार को बर्दाश्त नहीं किया जाएगा.

हाई कोर्ट के आदेश के बाद बचाव पक्ष के वकील ने कहा कि वो इस मामले में आगे सुप्रीम कोर्ट में अपील करेंगे.

दूसरी ओर पीड़िता की मां ने कहा कि वो इस फैसले से खुश हैं और उन्हें आगे भी न्याय मिलने की उम्मीद है.

इससे पहले निचली अदालत ने अपने फ़ैसले में कहा था, "अदालत ऐसे अपराधों की तरफ आंख नहीं मूंद सकता. इस हमले ने समाज की अंतरआत्मा की आवाज़ को स्तब्ध कर दिया था. ये मामला सचमुच अपवाद का है और इसमें मृत्यु दंड ही दिया जाना चाहिए."

Source: Online Hindi Newspaper