Delhi Court November 2007 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.
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Akhand Pratap Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: 146(2008)DLT93; 2007(99)DRJ513
V.B. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 CrPC, seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent by Smt. I.K. Kochar, Spl. Judge, New Delhi.2. As per the averments made in the present petition, the CBI has arrested the respondent in this case on 25th September, 2007 for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and 120B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and he remained in police custody for 15 days and thereafter now he is in judicial custody.3. Vide order dated 18th October, 2007, the learned Spl. Judge has granted bail to the respondent.4. The respondent had been found to have influenced the witnesses and fabricated evidence in order to mislead the investigation agency. Subsequent to his arrest, he had made a disclosure statement, pertaining to forgery of documents such as wills, bank instruments and property related documents for acquiring immovable assets in various...
Shri Mohd. Ali Jabiullah Vs. Shri A.K. Maurya and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(221)ELT501(Del)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Shri A.K. Maurya, Inspector, Customs (Preventive) had filed a complaint against the petitioner herein under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Taking cognizance of the complaint, the learned ACMM summoned the petitioner to face trial for an offence under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Petitioner filed an application before the learned ACMM praying that the proceedings against him emanating out of the afore-noted complaint be dropped which application has been dismissed by the learned ACMM vide order dated 15.3.2005.4. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the complaint as also order dated 15.03.2005. However in view of the legal position that the learned ACMM cannot recall the order summoning an accused matter was heard with reference to whether in view of order dated 23.4.2003 passed by CEGAT setting aside the penalty levied vide or...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: (2008)15VST250(Delhi)
ORDER1. This reference under Section 45(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 arises out of an order dated December 14, 1983 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Sales Tax ('Tribunal') in Appeal Nos. 8 and 9/STT/83.2. The following questions of law have been referred for our opinion:1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the sales were in the course of export of the goods out of the territory of India?2. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the ratio decidendi in Mod. Serajuddin's case : AIR1975SC1564 was not applicable to the case of the respondent-dealer?3. We have gone through the paper book with the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties. The assessed was exporting shoes to USSR through the State Trading Corporation (for short, 'STC'). During the course of export, all necessary documents were submitted to STC through Dena Bank after the goods had entered the export stream.4....
Shambhu and anr. Vs. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ731
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 903 of 2004, 902 of 2004 and 943 of 2004 seek to challenge the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2000, arising out of F.I.R. No. 630 of 1999, Police Station Ashok Vihar, whereby learned judge vide his judgment dated 11.10.2004 has held the appellants, namely, Shambhu, Amarnath, Vinod Kumar and Sudhir @ Pappu, guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302/307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for murder of Sampooran. Further vide his order dated 16.10.2004, has sentenced the appellants to imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC together with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for six months each. He has further sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under Section 307/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three month...
Shri Rahul Gupta and ors. Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2845
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned award dated. 7.4.2004 on the ground that the Tribunal has not granted adequate compensation towards the loss of the income due to the demise of the parents of the appellants.2. Brief facts of the present appeal are that Smt.Veena Gupta aged 53 years along with her husband Shri Dharampal Gupta aged about 60 years, their son, Shri Rahul Gupta, aged about 29 years and daughter-in-law, Smt. Raj Shree Gupta at about 10.00 a.m. on 22.6.1997 met with an accident on G.T. Road, Muzaffar Nagar, Roorkee Road, near Falauda, P.S. Purkaji, Distt. Muzazzaffar Nagar, U.P. while traveling in a Maruti car bearing registration No. HR-51 B-1199, and were proceeding from Delhi to Pondha (Dehradun). A Tata Sumo Car bearing registration No. UP 15F 3787 came from opposite side being driven at a very fast speed, rashly and negligently by its driver and truck being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came ...
Shri Love Kumar Sethi Vs. Deluxe Stores and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Delhi75; 2007(99)DRJ465
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Appellant Shri Love Kumar Sethi has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 1st March, 2005 passed by the Addl. District Judge, dismissing his suit No. 80/2002 filed by the appellant recovery of Rs.4,64,400/-(Four Lac sixty four thousand four hundred only). Parties were left to bear their own costs. The present appeal was preferred on 7th October, 2005. After counting time taken in obtaining certified copy, there is a delay of nearly 146 days in institution of the appeal. Appellant has accordingly moved CM 15787/2005 being an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing of the appeal. Reply to the said application has been filed. We shall advert later to this aspect. 2. The facts in brief culminating in filing of the present appeal may be noted:(i) Appellant Love Kumar Sethi filed a suit under Order xxxvII CPC for recovery of Rs.4,64,400/- together with pendente lite and future interest. Appellant claims to have dep...
Jasjeet Singh Marwaha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(224)ELT398(Del)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue notice. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition was heard finally.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by a show cause notice issued under Regulation 22 of the Customs House Agent Licencing Regulations, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'); they were framed under Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962. According to allegations of the Custom Authorities, the petitioner, a Customs House Agent, utilized a forged AEPC Certificate to clear the goods i.e. consignment of a customer namely M/s. El - Dupont India Limited. Apparently, a show cause notice was issued to the consignee and the petitioner. During the course of the proceedings, their statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. These included the statements of the present petitioner. On the strength of the materials, the Additional Commissioner(Adjudication) of Customs, levi...
Manohar Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(98)SLJ511(Delhi)
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 304-B, 201 and 498, IPC on 27.4.2004. On the basis of the said conviction he was removed from service, while he was working as Technician Grade I with the Railways under the Railway Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 vide order dated 2.2.2005. His departmental appeal was also rejected on 13.5.2005. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (The Tribunal) by filing O.A. No. 1867/2005 which has been dismissed on 1.9.2006. It is this order which impugned before us by the petitioner.2. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that he had preferred an appeal against the order of con viction before the Allahabad High Court. He has been released on bail and vide order dated 30.4.2005 the Allahabad High Court had stayed the execution of the sentence in the criminal case. On this basis it was contended that once the execution of the sentence has been stayed and the appeal w...
Yogender Kumar Vs. the State (Delhi Admn.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1076; 2007(99)DRJ268
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Convicted on a charge of committing double murder- patricide and parricide - by a judgment dated 7th May, 2004 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default further SI for six months vide order dated 27th May, 2004, the appellant is in appeal for reversal of such conviction and sentence.2. Prosecution case traces its origin to a report registered on an information by one Jai Prakash Pandey as DD No. 40 dated 21st September, 1997 at PP Inderlok, PS Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. Jai Prakash Pandey worked as a night watchman on the relevant date. In the course of his duty, at about 2.30 am, on the intervening night of 20th and 21st of September, 2007, he heard some groaning sound emanating from the first floor of House No. 313/40 Inderlok, Delhi whereupon he rushed to PP Inderlok to inform the police about the same. After recording the information given by Jai Prakash Pandey, the duty officer passed on a copy of DD No. 40/1997 dated 21st Septemb...
Vinay Mohan Sharma Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1672; 146(2008)DLT14
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner is the editor, printer and publisher of a magazine titled 'Eternica'. The magazine was found to be publishing obscene and indecent photographs of women. The petitioner was sought to be prosecuted for having committed an offence under Section 292 IPC as also Section 4 and Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986.2. Vide order dated 25.9.2000, learned ACMM recorded a prima facie view that offences as aforenoted were made out holding that the magazine contains photographs depicting naked and semi-naked woman in an obscene manner and that prima facie the magazine had a depraving effect. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed.3. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and immediately proceeded to file a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge praying that the notice framing the charge be quashed. Vide order dated 7.2.2001, learned ASJ. dismissed the revision petition inter alias opining as under:Section 292 categorize...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »