Delhi Court July 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kailash Wati Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT163; II(2001)DMC423; 2001(60)DRJ96
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 143/1993 is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional sessions Judge in SC No. 111/1998 whereby the learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 23.8.1993 has convicted the appellant under Sections 498-A/306, IPC and further by order dated 24.8.1993 sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.,500/- under Section 498-A, IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for two month; under Section 306, IPC the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for four months.2. Leaned Counsel for the appellant, at the outset, does not challenge the judgment of conviction. However, on the question of sentence, he submits that the appellant is 80 years old and is unable to take on any further incarcerations and that since she has be...
Fateh Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT377
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. Criminal Appeals Nos. 256/1994 are directed against the Judgment and Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in SC No. 34-A/1994 whereby the learned Judge vide his Judgment and Order dated 30.8.1994 held that the appellants guilty under Sections 392/397, IPC and further by a separate Order dated 31.8.1994 sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. The cases when called out today, nobody appeared for the appellants in support of the appeals. Since these are cases of 1994 and have been shown on the list for a sufficient amount of time, it can brook no further delay. I, thereforee, appoint Mr. R.P. Luthra as amices Curiae , who is present on behalf of Delhi State Legal Service Authority to assist the Court. 3. With the assistance of the learned amices curiae, I have gone through the record of the case. The learned amices curiae, after carefully examining the record of the case, fairly conceded that he is not in a position to ...
Uttam Pandey Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT393
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 235/1994 is directed against the Judgment and Order of the leaned Addition sessions Judge, Delhi in SC No. 22/1985 whereby the learned Judge vide his Judgment and Order dated 27.8.1994 held the appellant guilty under Section 304 Part-I, IPC and further by his Order dated 30.8.1994 sentence the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the appellant does not challenge the Order of conviction. However, on the question of sentence, he submits that in this case the incident took place on 30.3.1984 and that the appellant has already undergone the ordeal of trial for 17 years and has also undergone sentence of over one and half years. He submits that the appellant was admitted to bail on 27.2.1996. He submits that the appellant has not in any manner misused the bail. He has on the contrary shown exemplary behavior and has assimilated in the society as useful citizen. No useful purpose will be served i...
Buddha Films Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prasar Bharati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi488; 92(2001)DLT224
Arun Kumar, J.1. The respondent prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India (hereinafter to be referred as 'Prasar Bharati' for short) has made DD Sports Channel as na encrypted or any channel. Earlier to this it was free to air channel. This encryption of DD Sports Channel by Prasar Bharati has become cause of grievance to the appellant viz. Buddha Films Pvt. Ltd. According to the appellant this goes contrary to the agreement dated 17th February, 2000 entered into between appellant and Prasar Bharati as per which there was na assurance given to the appellant the DD Sports Channel would remain free to air channel. The controversy surrounds the following factual matrix:The Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short 'BCCI') entered into contract dated 25th September, 1999 with Prasar Bharati. As per this contract Prasar Bharati was given exclusive and full terrestrial (free to air or encrypted) and satellite (free to air r encrypted) rights and licenses to telecast all domesti...
Gian Devi Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT817
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer that order dated 8.2.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, discharging the accused is bad, on the ground that the Additional Sessions Judge has held that the offence is not made out under Sections 308/34, IPC, but that the offence committed is under Section 323, IPC. He could not have discharged the accused but have followed the procedure under Section 228-A, IPC.2. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2-3 submits that this is an order of 1995, which is sought to be challenged at this late stage and that too without even a prayer of condensation of delay. Be that as it may, I am of the view that once illegality is brought to the notice of the Court, it is the duty of the Court to set right the illegality and it can act suo motu thereon. There appears to be procedural irregularity, inasmuch as once the Additional Sessions Judge has held that a charge under Section 308, IPC cannot be made out but a c...
Virender Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ452
R. S. Sodhi, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.8.1993 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 36/92 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 325 1PC and further by his separate order dated 28.8.1993 sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo R.I. for five years with a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months.2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the first instance, fairly concedes that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction but has confined his arguments to the question of sentence only. He submits that the sentence undergone would suffice for the reasons that the case relates to 1992 and the appellant has undergone incarceration for-four years and two months actual. He submits that the accused has been on bail since February, 1996 and that there has been no complaint about his having belied the trust b...
Electrical Agencies Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Del)521; [2002]253ITR619(Delhi)
1. Pursuant to the directions given by this court in I. T. C No. 23 of 1983, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty was exigible in this case ?(2) When the learned Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had imposed penalty under the substantive provisions of Section 271(1)(c) and had not at all referred to Explanationn of Section 271(1) while levying the penalty, was the Tribunal competent to uphold the levy of penalty under the Explanationn to Section 271(1) ?(3) If the answer to the above is in the affirmative could it be said that the assessed-firm was guilty of any fraud or gross or willful neglect in filing its return of income ?(4) Was there any evidence with the Tribunal for upholding that the assessed-firm could not be said to have rebutted the presumption which arose aga...
Mogan and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ389
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeals Nos. 242/1994, 252/1994 and 261/1994 are directed against the Judgment and Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in SC No. 9/1992 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his Judgment and Order dated 10.11.1994 held the appellants guilty under Sections 392/34 IPC. Mogan was further held guilty under Section 397 IPC as well. Further by a separate Order of the same date the learned Judge has been pleased to sentence the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 392 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months each. Mogan was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 397 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Learned counsel, Mr. Andley, appearing on behalf of the appellants, concede...
Raju Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ696
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.7.1994 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 47/92 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and further by his order dated 26.7.1994 sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo R.I. for six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for three months.2. The brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Sessions Judge are as follows:-On 6-10-91 an information was received vide DD No. 12-A at P.S. Jahangir Puri regarding the admission of injured Naresh in the Hindu Rao Hospital. Accordingly Kanti Parshad, was handed over the copy of DD. Report. ASI Kanti Parshad went to the hospital and collected the M.L.C. of Naresh who was declared unfit for making statement by the doctor. Thereafter ASI Kanti Parshad reached the place of incident where Mukesh an alleged e...
Electrical Agencies Corpn. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN369(Delhi)
Pursuant to the directions given by this court in ITC 23 of 1983, the following questions have been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty was exigible in this case ?2. When the learned Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had imposed penalty under the substantive provisions of section 271(1)(c) and had not at all referred to Explanationn to section 271(1) while levying the penalty, was the Tribunal competent to uphold the levy of penalty under Explanationn to section 271 (1) ?3. If the answer to the above is in the affirmative, could it be said that the assessed-firm was guilty of any fraud or gross, or willful neglect in filing its return of income ?4. Was there any evidence with the Tribunal for upholding that the assessed-firm could not be said to have rebutted the presumption which arose agai...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »