Delhi Court May 2002 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.
Rameshwar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)699; 98(2002)DLT364; 2002(63)DRJ538; 2002(84)ECC193
K.S. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th March, 2001 and order dated 15th March 2001 of an Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant-accused under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the 'Act') and sentencing him to undergo RI for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac.2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16th August, 1999 around 2.15 PM ASI Chander Pal Singh, PW-9 Along with HCs Om Prakash, PW-7, Harpal Singh and Const. Rajvir Singh were present in connection with patrolling at E.E. Block Bus Stand, Outer Ring Road and there PW-9 received secret information that a person by the name of Rameshwar having heroin, would go to Maksudpur village via Maksudpur chowk. PW-9 organized a raiding party consisting of said police officials with him. PW-4 Sher Singh from public who agreed to join raid, was also included in raiding party. Nakabandi was made near Maksudpur chowk. Appellant reached Maksudpur ...
Bihari Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)895; 2002CriLJ3715; 98(2002)DLT220; 2002(63)DRJ525
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 672/93, under Sections 408/471 IPC, P.S. Connaught Place, New Delhi, and proceedings thereon, pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, Delhi.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that petitioner is working as a Peon in the Oriental Insurance Company; on 30 September, 1993, Jolly Datta, Divisional Manager of the company lodged a report against the petitioner alleging that a sum of Rs.2,17,258/- was entrusted to him for depositing in the Bank of India, the bankers of the company but the petitioner produced a forged receipt purported to be genuine; after investigation challan was filed in the court; and cognizance was taken and accused was summoned. By order dated 8.11.96, learned Magistrate, held that the prima facie case under the above noted sections is made out against the petitioner. This order is under challenge...
Brijesh Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)137; 2002CriLJ3873; 98(2002)DLT63; 2002(64)DRJ77
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition, under Section 439 and 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short'Cr.P.C.') read with Section 18 of Juvenile Justice Act,1986 (hereinafter 'the Act'), petitioner is seekingquashing of the order dated 9th August, 2000 passed bythe Juvenile Justice Court, Delhi or in the alternativebail in the case FIR No. 15/2000 under Sections376/363/341/34 IPC P.S. Malviya Nagar.2. Brief facts are that on 12th January, 2000 petitioner was arrested in the above noted case and was sent to judicial custody. He moved an application that he was less than 16 years of age and was juvenile. In support of his submission he produced a school leaving certificate showing his date of birth as 14th August, 1986. Prosecution contested the same. The Juvenile Court acting under Section 32 of the Act decided to hold an enquiry to find out whether the petitioner was juvenile or not. Prosecution in support of its case examined CW-1 Dr. Rajneesh Juneja, Radiologist, HRH Hospi...
Dr. Nalini Mahajan, Vs. Director of Income Tax (inv.) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)353; 98(2002)DLT525; [2002]257ITR123(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Validity of searches and seizures, purported to have beenmade, in the premises of the petitioners is the subject matter of thesewrit petitions.2. We would consider the fact of the matter in brief separately :-CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS :- C.W.P. Nos. 2999 & 2767 Of 2001 :- 3. Once Ram Lal Mahajan Charitable Trust (in short, 'the Trust') was set up on or about 25.01.1968 where for an exemption in terms of Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') was granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax. A trust deed was executed in terms whereof the objects of the original trust were elaborated. On or about 1.3.1979 a supplementary deed was also executed to conform to the provisions of Section 13(5) of the Act whereafter, the Commissioner granted exemption in terms of Section 80G of the Act by an order dated 01.01.1980. It is stated that such exemption had been continued and the claims made by the trust under Section 11 of the Act had b...
Shri S.P. Kapoor Vs. Sh. Kamal Mahavir Prasad Murarka and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)73; 97(2002)DLT997; 2002(64)DRJ103
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only) is directed against an order dated 3rd September, 2001, passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by which the petitioner's application for leave to defend under Section 25-B(4) of the Act was dismissed and respondents' eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act was allowed.2. I have heard Sh. L.R. Gupta, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner and Sh. V.K. Makhija, Sr. Advocate for the respondents. I have gone through the Trial Court records.The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated are, that the respondent No. 1, claiming to be the owner-landlord of property No. D-281, defense Colony, New Delhi, filed and eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act alleging that the petitioner-tenant was let out the suit property for residential purpose by Mrs. Raj Sondhi, the previous ow...
Sudesh Kumar and ors. Vs. the State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)177; 98(2002)DLT516
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Sections 482/483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is directedagainst the order dated 18th February, 2002 passed by Sh. D.C. Anand, Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi dismissing revision petition, as not maintainable against the order dated 7th August, 2001 framing charges under Sections 147/149/186/353/332/342/506 IPC in case FIR No. 247/98 P.S. Vivek Vihar by ACMM.2. Notice. Mr. Pawan Sharma accepts notice on behalf of State. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the point involved in the revision petition is very short and the same can be heard and disposed of at this stage itself.3. Prosecution allegations, in brief, are that on 29th August, 1998 at about 4.30 p.m. at Anaj Mandi Chowk, Shahdara, petitioners along with others formed an un-lawful assembly with the common object of obstructing the SDM, Vivek Vihar and other Government officials from dischargingtheir public duties and used criminal force aga...
Sh. Rajesh Gulati Vs. Lt. Governor of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT124
Khan, J. 1. Petitioner was arrested on 5.7.2001 by custom officials at IGI Airport for allegedly having smuggled 42 mobile phones worth Rs. 4.50 lacs or so. He moved several bail applications before ACMM and ASJ which were rejected till he was eventually granted bail by this court by order dated 29.10.2001. But before he could come out on bail, he was detained by order dated 28.9.2001. He was supplied grounds of detention and the list of relied upon documents. He made a representation dated 17.10.2001 against his detention and requested for revocation of his detention order or alternatively for supply of some documents/material. His representation was rejected. He made a representation again on 29.10.2001 which also met the same fate by order dated 18.11.2001. His detention was eventually confirmed for 12 months by order dated 8.11.2001. 2. Petitioner has filed this petition to challenge his detention on a variety of grounds. His first plea is that his detention was unjustified as ther...
Smt. Ram Rakhi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi458; 99(2002)DLT51; 2002(64)DRJ156
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. A question seemingly of some importance is involved in these two writ petitions, as to whether a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'said Act') as also Section 17 thereof, can be issued by a competent authority, pursuant to a direction issued by this Court. 2. The factual matrix of the matter is being noticed from CWP No.7648/00. 3. The petitioner therein purchased 149.5 sq. yds. of land in Khasra No. 573, Village Chandawli alias Shahdar, in the year 1958. A notification under Section 4 was issued for 1 bigha 19 bids was on 13th November 1959; whereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was also issued on 1st November 1966. About 26 acres of land at the rear of the petitioner's plot, had been allotted to Delhi Police by Delhi Development Authority (in short the 'DDA') in October 1980. A portion of the petitioner's premises was allegedly by Delhi Police, while erecting its boundary wall, leading to the petiti...
A.B.L. Garg Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ3
K.S. Gupta, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of Crl. M (M) Nos. 3644, 3645, 3646, 3647, 3648, 3649, 3650, 3651, 3658, 3659, and 3662/2001.2. Facts leading to filing, of Crl. M (M) No. 3644/2001 which is treated as lead case, are these - Complaint under Section 162 read with Section 220(3) of Companies Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act') was filed by the Registrar of Companies (Delhi & Haryana), complainant/respondent against M/s. Malhotra Chit Fund and Finance (Pvt.) Ltd., Vijay Kumar Malhotra, Smt. Nisha Malhotra and the petitioner impleading them as accused 1 to 4 alleging that accused No. 1 was incorporated on 8th September, 1983 under registration No. 16503 as a private limited company under the Act. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 were Directors of accused No. 1 - company as per the particulars filed in the office of complainant and they were, thus, responsible for compliance of provision of Section 220(1) of the Act. Under Section 220(1), company and its Directors are under statutory obl...
Dr. Nalini Mahajan Vs. Director of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Del)1; [2002]122TAXMAN897(Delhi)
ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J. Validity of searches and seizures, purported to have been made, in the premises of the petitioners is the subject-matter of these writ petitions.2. We would consider the fact of the matter in brief separately:CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERSC .W.P. Nos. 2999 and 2767 of 20013. One Ram Lal Mahajan Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust') was set up on or about 25-1-1968 where for an exemption in terms of section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was granted by the Commissioner. A trust deed was executed in terms whereof the objects of the original trust were elaborated. On or about 1-3-1979 a supplementary deed was also executed to conform to the provisions of section 13(5) of the Act whereafter, the Commissioner granted exemption in terms of section 80G of the Act by an order dated 1-1-1980. It is stated that such exemption had been continued and the claims made by the trust under section 11 of the Act had been ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »