Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 6 of about 331 results (0.020 seconds)D.P.Chaturvedi and ors. Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 277/05, registered against the petitioners under section 406/420/120-B of IPC read with section 468/471/34 IPC. Investigation in the case is complete and the charge-sheet against the petitioners has been filed by Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Crime Branch, to whom the investigation was handed over under sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC. The sole ground taken by the petitioners in this petition is that the petitioners had returned back loan amount of Rs. 80.00 lac and was no dues were there against the petitioners in respect of complainant. In view of return of amount, the FIR should be quashed as the FIR primarily involved money owing to the complainant and since money has been paid back during pendency of the case, proceedings should be quashed. Relianc...
Tag this Judgment!Vikram Sharma and ors. Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the order should be reported in Digest? YesORDER1. The background to the petition is that Respondent No. 10 who is the wife of Petitioner No.1, and daughter-in-law of Petitioners 2 and 3, filed a complaint on 15th March 2008 with the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi alleging commission of acts of cruelty by them attracting the provision of S.498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. On 28th March 2008 she also filed a complaint with the National Commission of Women (NCW), Respondent No.3 herein. The Petitioners state that on receiving a telephonic summons from the Project Coordinator, Respondent No. 8, on 31st March 2008 they went to the office of the NCW on 1 st April 2008 where, they allege, they were spoken to rudely by Respondent No.8. On 8th April 2008, as Petitioner No.1 was on his way to Dubai, he was "off-loaded at the IGI Airport, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Rana and Others Versus Union of India Through Secretary Mi ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
COMMON JUDGMENT 1. In all these appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved and hence they are disposed of by this common judgment. However, in T.A No. 738 of 2009, the findings of the General Court Martial were not challenged before the High Court under writ jurisdiction. In all other appeals, writ petitions were filed and they were dismissed. In all these cases, the preliminary question with regard to the maintainability of these cases is to be considered, at the admission stage. 2. The appellant in T.A No. 693 of 2009 seeks to direct the respondents to compensate him for having been falsely implicated in an offence under Section 69 of the Army Act read with Section 3(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and thereby convicting him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 14 years. According to the appellant, he was not afforded fair opportunity and the GCM arbitrarily held him guilty of the aforesaid charge. The findings caused humiliation and irreparable har...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sneh Aggarwal Vs State Govt. Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?ORDER:1. These applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C., for short) have been filed by Mr. Subhash Aggarwal, Ms. Sneh Aggarwal, Mr. Naresh Lakra and Mr. Vijay Deswal. The said applicants have been arrested in FIR No. 104/2009 under Section 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC, for short) which has been registered and investigated by Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police.2. Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that the accused have already been in police custody/judicial custody since June, 2009 and no useful purpose will be served by further detaining them. It is pointed out that the maximum sentence for an offence under Section 406, IPC is three years. My attention is also drawn to the fact that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Ramu Vs the State (Delhi Admn.)
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?ORDER:1. These applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C., for short) have been filed by Mr. Subhash Aggarwal, Ms. Sneh Aggarwal, Mr. Naresh Lakra and Mr. Vijay Deswal. The said applicants have been arrested in FIR No. 104/2009 under Section 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC, for short) which has been registered and investigated by Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police.2. Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that the accused have already been in police custody/judicial custody since June, 2009 and no useful purpose will be served by further detaining them. It is pointed out that the maximum sentence for an offence under Section 406, IPC is three years. My attention is also drawn to the fact that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Sudesh Kumar Araora Vs D.M.Sapolia and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER,1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have willfully violated the orders passed by this Court on 3.8.2004 in W.P.(C)No.3005/2003 and on 31.10.2006 in Cont.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was running a shop at Kashmiri Gate. In view of the DMRC project, the shop of the petitioner was removed and an alternate shop was made available to him being shop no.29 at ISBT, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi. The petitioner, however, sought a direction from this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.3005/2003 that he should be treated as similarly situated evictees of 'Dhaba Block'. The writ petition was allowed and the following order was passed on 3.8.2004.IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 03.08.2004Present : Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advoc...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Aggarwal and ors. Vs State Govt Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?ORDER:1. These applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C., for short) have been filed by Mr. Subhash Aggarwal, Ms. Sneh Aggarwal, Mr. Naresh Lakra and Mr. Vijay Deswal. The said applicants have been arrested in FIR No. 104/2009 under Section 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC, for short) which has been registered and investigated by Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police.2. Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that the accused have already been in police custody/judicial custody since June, 2009 and no useful purpose will be served by further detaining them. It is pointed out that the maximum sentence for an offence under Section 406, IPC is three years. My attention is also drawn to the fact that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Mohd. Razqeen and ors. Vs Smt. Iqbal Bana @ Balo
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1.Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 8th July, 2008, passed by Civil Judge, Delhi, vide which application of petitioners seeking permission to cross- examine PW Iqbal Bano i.e. respondent, was dismissed.2. Suit filed in the year 2004 by respondent against present petitioners, is pending in the Court of Civil Judge.3. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that on 17th November, 2007, counsel for petitioners could not appear and cross- examine the defendant, as he was suffering from sickness and severe throat infection and right of petitioners to cross-examine the defendant was closed. Thereafter, petitioners filed an application for seeking permission to cross- examine the respondent, but the same was dismissed vide impug...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Naseem Vs Ali Mohd.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1. This second appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 20.4.2010 wherein the finding of the Trial Judge dated 3.4.2008 had been endorsed; the application of the defendant/respondent under order 7 Rule 11 CPC had been allowed and the plaint had been rejected amounting to a dismissal of the suit.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:- (i) Plaintiff/appellant had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 15.11.1996 qua the suit property bearing No.D-74, Welcome, Seelampur, Delhi for a consideration of Rs.2,34,000/-. A sum of Rs.1,03,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as earnest money. Vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property had been handed over to the plaintiff on the same day. Parties had agreed to execute a sale deed and g...
Tag this Judgment!Manjeet and Kalu and ors. Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
ORDER1. Mr. Naresh Kumar, the respondent No.2 herein had filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code for short). It was stated in the complaint that his son Harish Kumar on 18th July, 2007 had met Rakesh, Gujji, Sumit, Pradeep, Neeraj and one other person. They played cards and consumed liquor. Thereafter, Rakesh and Gujji had asked for money from the complainant's son Harish Kumar and when he refused to meet their demands, he was brutally beaten and thrown in a dry well which was 70-80 feet deep. Subsequently, Harish Kumar was rescued and taken to hospital in unconscious state. The complainant's son Harish Kumar has suffered back injuries and is under treatment. He had also alleged that he had made repeated police complaints and met senior police officer but steps were not taken to investigate the allegations and nab the culprits.2. Along with the complaint, Mr. Naresh Kumar had filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code. Learned Metrop...
Tag this Judgment!