Delhi Court November 2005 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.
Manoj Kumar @ Goldy Vs. Sh. S.K. Srivastava, Intelligence Officer (Dri ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT55; 2006(86)DRJ331
ORDERJ.P. Singh, J.1. This is an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The appellant-accused Manoj Kumar @ Goldy has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) and has been awarded 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 1 lakh in default of payment of fine RI for 6 months.2. I have heard Shri Harjinder Singh, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashish Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent-State and have gone through the impugned judgment, order on sentence and copies of the documents placed on the file.3. Briefly the facts are that the Intelligence Officer of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence received information about transportation of narcotic drugs in two trucks bearing registration Nos. HR-29A-0705 and DL-IG-A-9499. Both the trucks were seized and taken to the office of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. Two...
B.S. Chopra Vs. the Magmt. of Karnataka Handloom Development Corporati ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT518; 2006(87)DRJ76; (2006)IILLJ378Del
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 23.4.2002. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.2. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer in the service of respondent No. 1 vide appointment letter dated 19.2.1986 on probation for one year. The relevant clause in the appointment letter states:-You will be on probation for a period of one year. You will be eligible for confirmation on successful completion of the period of probation. If at the end of the probationary period no order of confirmation is issued, you will continue to be on probation till you receive the order of confirmation or order of termination.3. The probation period was extended by another letter dated 8.5.1987 in which it was stated:-It is reported that the...
Rajni Devi Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ891; 125(2005)DLT246; 2005(85)DRJ375
R.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.3.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi, thereby convicting the appellant herein of the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) and sentencing her to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.2. The relevant facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant herein Smt.Rajni Devi was prosecuted by Police Station Narcotic Branch, Kamla Market for the offence under Section 21 of the Act on the allegations that on 14.10.1999 at about 3.15 p.m. near Government Boys Senior Secondary School, she was found in possession of 7 kgms of heroin. She was tried for the said offence in the court of Special Judge, NDPS, Delhi. Charge was framed against her, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 11 w...
Pradeep Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT323; 2005(85)DRJ424; 2006(3)SLJ107(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The writ petition has already been admitted on 28th February, 2000. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition challenges the termination order dated 24th November, 1997 passed by Adm Officer, CO I for Commander of Border Road Task Force, respondent No.5.3. The facts of the case as averred in the writ petition as follows:-The petitioner was serving in Border Roads Task Force(now known as `GREF') since 19th November, 1993. He was on probation initially for a period of two years and his probation was extended after taking into account his overall performance. Initially the period of probation was extended from 19th November, 1995 to 18th November, 1996. Thereafter the period of probation was again extended from 19th November, 1996 to 18th November, 1997. The petitioner was issued a Memorandum dated 24th October, 1993 where certain shortcomings/misconduct on his part were pointed out and...
Shambhu Prasad Nawani and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT500; 2005(85)DRJ628
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioners had appeared in examination for the promotion to the E list in respect of Telecom Cadre held on 13th March, 2000. The petitioners state that the examination were held on the basis of the standing order No. 22/1995. The petitioners' further case is that on the basis of performance in the written test, the petitioners were found eligible and fit for appearing in the practical test which was conducted on 26/27th April, 2000 & thereafter the petitioners were allowed to appear in the interview on 29th April, 2000. Being unsuccessful in the overall result, the petitioners have challenged the non grant of promotion. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sub Major J.S. Randhawa v. Union of India and Ors. reported as 2000 (5) SLR 387 which held that no requisite p...
Ram Parshad Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT129; 2006(86)DRJ224
ORDERJ.P. Singh, J.1. This application under Section 427 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved for directions to run the sentences in two cases concurrently. Regular criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and the order on sentence dated 21.1.2004 and 24.1.2004 respectively, passed by Addl. Session Judge, Delhi is pending in this Court. Another Crl.A No. 620/03 is also pending in this court.2. I have heard Shri S.K. Sood, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and Shri Sunil K. Kapoor, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and have gone through the file.3. In the other Criminal A. No. 620/2003 (FIR 182/1998 under Section 489-C, IPC, PS-Malviya Nagar, Delhi), the applicant has already undergone the awarded sentence of 3 years. He was also fined Rs. 10,000/- which he did not pay and is undergoing sentence in default of payment.4. In the present matter, vide FIR No. 443/1998 under Section 89-C, IPC, PS Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, the applicant has been awarded 3 years se...
Kapoor Singh Rana Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT367; 2006(86)DRJ428
Manju Goel, J.1. The appeal arises out of a judgment of conviction under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (in short `IPC') by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi in a case in which injury to the victim was caused by throwing acid on her person.2. The salient feature of this case is that the injured, Sunita Devi, on whose statement the FIR was registered expired before the trial could commence. There is no evidence regarding the cause of her death and, thereforee, there is no effort to relate her death to the injuries suffered by throwing of acid. Apparently there was no eye witness to the actual occurrence. She named the petitioner as the person who had thrown acid on her. The FIR accordingly recorded the name of the accused. The victim could not be examined during trial. The evidence against the accused/appellant is the testimony of the victim's mother who saw the accused leaving the house and claims to have been told by the victim that the appellant had thrown acid on her...
Vinod Kumar and ors. Vs. Sh. S.K. Srivastava, Intelligence Officer (Dr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1759; 126(2006)DLT89
ORDERJ.P. Singh, J.1. This is an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The appellant-accused persons namely Vinod Kumar and Jaspal Singh have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) and have been awarded 20 years RI and fine of Rs. 2 lacs each in default of payment of fine RI for 1 (one) year under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act and 20 years of RI and fine of Rs. 2 lacs each and in default of payment of fine further RI for 1 (one) year under Section 23(C) of the NDPS Act and also RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 (one) lakh each and in default of payment of fine further RI for 6 months under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.2. I have heard Shri Harjinder Singh, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashish Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent-State and have gone through the impugned judgment, order on sentence ...
India Tourism Development Corpn. Vs. G.S. Panwar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: 128(2006)DLT814; 2006(87)DRJ74; 2006(3)SLJ143(Delhi)
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 3.3.2005 passed by the learned single Judge in WP(C) No. 956/2003. The writ petitioner had challenged his transfer order from Bharatpur to Agra dated 10.10.2001. The writ petition challenging that transfer order was filed in January, 2003. In our opinion, this writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches, i.e. unreasonable delay, without going into the merits. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner) submitted that the petitioner was making representations against the transfer order. It is well settled that mere filing of non-statutory representations does not condone the delay in filing a writ petition, vide J.N. Maltiar v. State of Bihar, : (1973)ILLJ474SC . It is only the filing of a statutory representation which can help the petitioner in such cases, vide Sambolo International H.K....
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manoj Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Del)327; [2006]287ITR285(Delhi)
ORDER1. The Tribunal has recorded a clear finding of fact that the search on the premises of the assessed did not lead to the seizure of any incriminating evidence to suggest that any income had not been disclosed or would not have been disclosed for tax purpose under the IT Act, 1961. It has, on that finding, held that the AO was not justified in making additions on the basis of the report of the valuation officer in regard to two of the properties purchased by the assessed. The reasoning of the Tribunal's order proceeds thus :As a result of the search on the assessed, no evidence was found which may represent wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purpose of IT Act. The AO merely for the reason to suspect that the consideration was understated resorted to an estimation of value in respect of two properties by the DVO i.e., in respect of property No. 188/B-14, Sector 8, Rohini, and property No. 45/F-2, Sector 7, Rohini. The valu...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »