Delhi Court December 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 8 of about 211 results (0.021 seconds)Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. AllauddIn @ Mir @ Malik and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. On 20th August, 1993 on a secret information that one Allauddin is likely to be found in the coffee shop of the hotel Janpath with heroin, Sarwan Singh PW2 and Dhileep Kumar PW4 both intelligence officers of the Crl. Appeal No.111/1997 Page 1 of 17 Appellant along with the team and B.N. Mishra PW4, Assistant Director went to the hotel. The officers found Respondent No.1 Allauddin sitting in the coffee shop with a rexine bag. Sarwan Singh introduced himself and other NCB officers to Allauddin and expressed his intention to search his baggage which was agreed to by the accused. Two panchas namely Amar Nath Sharma and Sanjay Kumar, security guards of the hotel were associated with the search and for that the Respondent No.1 was taken to a room in the hotel. On search of the rexine bag, 5 packets were recovered which contained brown powder, a small quantity of which was tested with the help of the field test kit which gave positive test for narcotic drug. All the 5 packets found to be w...
Tag this Judgment!Virender Singh Vs. State of Delhi.
Court: Delhi
1. By way of the present appeal the Appellant challenges the judgment of conviction for offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine of `10,000/-.2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 30th July, 1997, a complaint was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix regarding the missing of his daughter alleging that his daughter aged about 14 years, a student of VIIIth standard had gone to the school on 28th July, 1997 at about 7 a.m., but she neither reached the school nor came back to home. On further enquiries, the complainant Narender Mishra, father of the girl found out that his daughter had been taken away/enticed by his former tenant Pradeep S/o Vishwanath. On 6th August, 1997, on the basis of this statement of Narender Mishra a case was registered under Section 363 IPC. The police started its search for the girl and Pradeep. Search was conducted at various places and finally she was found in the area of P.S. Loni along wi...
Tag this Judgment!Gurcharan Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
1. On 19th April, 1996 Kulbeer Singh (PW4) had gone to Darya Ganj at about 6.00 P.M. to purchase medicines for his uncle who was admitted in G.B. Pant Hospital. Two persons i.e. the appellant and his deceased accomplice accosted him in the galli near "Dena Bank". One of these persons Crl. Appeal No. 647/1999 Page 1 of 12 put a knife on his stomach and told him not to shout, whose name he came to know later as Gurcharan Singh, and his accomplice Rama took out his purse from the pocket of his shirt. He threatened Kulbeer Singh that in case he shouts the consequences will not be good. Two police officers who were on the patrolling duty reached there and the Appellant along with his co-accused Rama were caught on the spot. The knife was recovered from the right hand of the Appellant Gurcharan Singh.2. On the basis of the statement of the complainant Kulbeer Singh, FIR No. 178/1996 under Section 392 IPC and another FIR bearing No. 179/1996 under Section 27 Arms Act, PS Darya Ganj were got r...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. N.D. Sharma Vs. Central Bank of India (Zonal Office) and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the writ quashing the show cause notice dated 25.05.2001 and subsequent enquiry proceedings and orders dated 02.11.2005 and 14.05.2008 passed against the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was working with the respondent No. 1 since 1962. Initially he started working as a clerk and later on got several promotions. In June 1993 the petitioner was given a special assignment for audit and inspection of three branches i.e. Shahdra, Delhi, Janpath and Press Area, New Delhi of the respondent bank. As per the case of the petitioner, during the inspection serious irregularities and fraud involving the higher authorities were discovered. Details of some such irregularities are reproduced below: (i) A loan of Rs. 25 lakh was sanctioned to M/s Rajiv Alloy & Copper Industries Ltd. The petitioner detected that a loan to this unit was already made by Civil Line ...
Tag this Judgment!Meena Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. The petitioner in both the petitions claim to be belonging to OBC Category. They applied for admission in University of Delhi in LL.B & M.Sc. (Chemistry) course respectively in the academic year 2010-11. They were however not admitted as per the Admission Policy of the respondent University qua OBCs. The same Admission Policy, as is being followed by the respondent University qua OBCs, was also being followed by the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). This Court vide judgment dated 7th September, 2010 in WP(C) No.4857/2007 titled Apurva v. Union of India held the said Policy to be bad. The petitioners, contending that they have been denied admission for the reason of the respondent University following the policy not approved of by this Court in Apurva (supra), and that else they would have been entitled to admission, have filed the present petitions for scrapping the entire admission procedure followed by the University and for directing afresh admissions in consonance with what has...
Tag this Judgment!Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Prade ...
Court: Delhi
1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the State of Uttar Pradesh, Respondent No.1, to honour its guarantee in respect of the 14.9% redeemable bonds issued by U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd. (Respondent No. 2) and pay the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 20,32,491/- towards the principal amount of the bonds together with interest as well as overdue interest till payment.2. The background facts are that Respondent No. 2 wished to raise a sum of Rs. 55 crores to meet the working capital requirements of its member mills. It, therefore, came out with a bonds issue through private placement. The face value of each bond was Rs. 5,000 and tenure 5 years. The bonds were to carry interest @ 14.9% per annum payable annually on 26 th December of each year. The bonds were to be redeemed in three instalments at par at the end of 4th, 41/2 and 5th year @ 33%, 33% and 34% respectively. It is stated that RR Financial Consultants Limited and Dara Shaw Badar Financial Services...
Tag this Judgment!Harpal Singh Dhingra Vs. Punjab Technical University and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. The petitioner, appointed as an authorized Study Centre of the respondent University under its Distance Education Programme for conducting various Information Technology (IT) courses of the University has filed this writ petition impugning the order dated 10 th February, 2010 of the University holding that the term of the authorization letters earlier issued to the petitioner and of the contract with the petitioner had already expired and also terminating the authorization/contract with the petitioner for the reason of the petitioner having indulged in activities detrimental to the academic pursuits of a State Technical University and for the reason of the Centre of the petitioner being a teaching shop for commercial gains and bringing bad name to the University. The petition seeks restoration of the status of the petitioner as the authorized center of the University and direction to the University to refund/remit certain amounts, TDS Certificates etc. to the petitioner.2. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Vacmet Packagings (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
1. The short question in this petition is whether the Petitioner company Vacmet Packagings (India) Pvt. Ltd. (VPIPL) is entitled to avail of the Target Plus Scheme announced as part of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09 (FTP 2004-09) announced by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. Para 3.7.2 of the FTP 2004-09 spells out the eligibility criteria as under:"3.7.2 All Star Export Houses (including Status Holders as defined in para 3.7.1 of Exim Policy 2002-07) which have achieved a minimum export turnover in free foreign exchange of Rs. 10 crores in the previous licencing year are eligible for consideration under the Target Plus Scheme."2. It is not in dispute that VPIPL is a Star Export House. Para 3.7.4 indicates who can apply under the Target Plus Scheme. It reads as under: "3.7.4 Companies which are Star Export Houses as well as part of a Group company shall have an option to either apply as an individual company or as a Group based on the growth in the Groups t...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Vs. State
Court: Delhi
1.This is an appeal against the judgment dated 05 th December, 2008 and Order of Sentence dated 12th December, 2008, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 392 IPC read with 397/34 thereof and was sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.2. The complainant Saravjeet Singh went to Police Station Paschim Vihar on 01.01.2005 and lodged FIR, stating therein, that on that day he was returning home in his car No. DL 9 CG-6789. When he was reached at the traffic light of T Point of Road No. 19/20 at about 12:30 a.m. and was waiting at the intersection, four boys came there. Two of them stood in front of his car, whereas the remaining Crl.A.No.605/1999 Page 1 of 11 two knocked at the window of his car. When the complainant pulled down the glass of the window, one of them put a knife on his neck and the other took out the keys of the car. When the complainant tried to remove th...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Police Vs. D.K.Sharma
Court: Delhi
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Branch ('DCP') is aggrieved by an order dated 25th September 2009 passed by the Central Information Commission ('CIC') directing the Petitioner DCP to provide to the Respondent copies of the documents sought by him. These documents include certified copies of D.D. entry of arrest of the Respondent and various other documents relating to the investigation of the case, under FIR No. 52 of 2003. The CIC found the denial of the information by the Petitioner by taking recourse of Section 8 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act') to be untenable. It was held that none of the clauses under Section 8 (1) covered subjudice matters and therefore, the information could not be denied.2. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Pawan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, and the Respondent who appears in person.3. Mr. Pawan Sharma referred to Section 172 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') and su...
Tag this Judgment!