Kailash Chandra Sharma Vs Ndmc

Kailash Chandra Sharma vs Ndmc

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 13, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/904487

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/904487
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Mr. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
Decided On: Aug 13, 2010
Case Number: Crl.MC 648 of 2010
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, dated 21.01.2010 in ITA No.2269/ Mds/2008.

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kailash Chandra Sharma

Advocate Mr. Chakroborty, Adv.

Respondent

Ndmc

Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Adv.

Excerpt

tax case appeal filed under section 260-a of the income tax act, 1961 against the order of the income tax appellate tribunal, madras 'c' bench, dated 21.01.2010 in ita no.2269/ mds/2008. 1. whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. to be referred to the reporter or not?3. whether judgment should be reported in digest?1. this petition under section 482 cr.p.c has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing an order dated 30th september, 2008 passed by learned additional sessions judge, new delhi in criminal revision no.75 of 2008 framing notice under section 252/369(1) of the ndmc act, 1994.2. the contention of the petitioner is that the learned asj had not considered that the offence committed by the petitioner was not a continuing offence and the petitioner had once been prosecuted for this offence and acquitted.3. the offence for which the petitioner has been booked by ndmc is misuser of the premises. so long as the misuse of the premises bearing number ub-5, prakash deep building, 7, tolstoy marg, new delhi is not stopped, the misuser is a continuing offence and for each day of misuser of the premises in question, the petitioner can be booked by ndmc, as a separate offence. the plea taken by the petitioner that since his earlier conviction for misuser is set aside on account of limitation, he, therefore, cannot be convicted again for any misuse of the premises, in my opinion, is a baseless plea. this aspect has already been dealt with by this court in mcd v mrs. krishna devi, i-1988(1) crimes 300.4. i find no infirmity in the order passed by learned asj. the petition is hereby dismissed being a frivolous petition with costs of rs.25,000/-, to be deposited with delhi high court legal services committee.

Full Judgment

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing an order dated 30th September, 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Criminal Revision No.75 of 2008 framing notice under Section 252/369(1) of the NDMC Act, 1994.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the learned ASJ had not considered that the offence committed by the petitioner was not a continuing offence and the petitioner had once been prosecuted for this offence and acquitted.

3. The offence for which the petitioner has been booked by NDMC is misuser of the premises. So long as the misuse of the premises bearing number UB-5, Prakash Deep Building, 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi is not stopped, the misuser is a continuing offence and for each day of misuser of the premises in question, the petitioner can be booked by NDMC, as a separate offence. The plea taken by the petitioner that since his earlier conviction for misuser is set aside on account of limitation, he, therefore, cannot be convicted again for any misuse of the premises, in my opinion, is a baseless plea. This aspect has already been dealt with by this Court in MCD v Mrs. Krishna Devi, I-1988(1) Crimes 300.

4. I find no infirmity in the order passed by learned ASJ. The petition is hereby dismissed being a frivolous petition with costs of Rs.25,000/-, to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2010 Same Parties Kailash Chandra Sharma vs Ndmc Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Mr. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

Land Acquisition