Delhi Court January 2011 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2011 Page 21 of about 216 results (0.008 seconds)Shyam Kumar Vs. State
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. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 9th November 2010 of learned ASJ, New Delhi upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 411/419/420/467/468/471 IPC.2. The allegations against the petitioner were that the petitioner along with another accused Radhey Shyam committed theft of a draft of Rs.7,000/- which was in the name of Gurdeep Singh and thereafter by forging documents and by impersonation he opened an account in the name of Gurdeep Singh and out of Rs.7,000/-, Rs.6900/- was withdrawn from the account. The signatures of Gurdeep Singh were forged in the account opening form, on the pay in slip and on all other documents for opening the account and withdrawal of money. The learned trial court after considering the entire evidence found that other accused Radhe...
Tag this Judgment!Central Excise Vs. State
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. This application has been made for condonation of delay in filing this Revision Petition against order dated 11th February, 2010. There is a delay of 105 days. The reasons for condonation of delay as stated are that certified copy of order was ready on 18th February, 2010, the department was advised to assail the order, the department wrote a letter to counsel on 22nd march, 2010 seeking fresh advice. The department was advised by letter dated 18th April, 2010 to file a revision petition. The department was reminded again vide communication dated 16th May, 2010 and another communication dated 1st August, 2010. Ultimately, the department on 25th August, 2010 conveyed the decision to file a revision petition against the order dated 11th February,2010 and accordingly the revision petition was filed on 31st August, 2010 with a...
Tag this Judgment!Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Pawan Kumar 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 judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. By this Revision Petition the petitioner has assailed order dated 1st June, 2010, whereby learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) discharged the accused.2. The order of learned ACMM makes interesting reading. The ACMM observed as under:"It may not be necessary to call the sanctioning authority to cl in the witness box but it must be proved that there was an application of mind by the authority prior to the grant of sanction.The order of sanction appears to be verbatim reproduction of major portion of complaint. The same does not mention how the sanctioning authority got to know the facts mentioned in 37 page sanction order as to who briefed the sanctioning authority or whether the investigation file was put before him or not. It is not clear how the sanctioning authority came to know about the fact whether ...
Tag this Judgment!Air Travel Bureau Ltd and Another Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
1. The petitioner no.1-Air Travel Bureau Ltd. avers that it is a travel agency and for the purpose of its business activities had imported five cars subject matter of the present petition, under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (hereinafter referred to as EPCG, for short) under the Foreign Trade Police 2002-07. The four licenses, for import of the said cars were issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade (hereinafter referred to as DGFT, for short). As under the EPCG Scheme the cars had been imported by the petitioner no.1 at concessional/reduced rate of customs duty being a service provider, and subject to the condition that the service provider shall generate export obligation equal to/worth five or eight times, depending upon the Circulars issued from time to time, the CIF value of the capital goods on FOB basis within a period of eight years from issue of the licences.2. The petitioner no.1 had at the time of customs clearance on reduced/concessional rate of duty had ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Nath Vij Vs. Kanwar Karan Singh
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.By way of this application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the respondent prays for striking out of certain additional facts and particulars which are added in paragraphs 6(a) and 6(d) of the rejoinder of the petitioner, and that the additional documents filed in support thereof may not be taken on the record. 2. A brief background, leading to the filing of the above application, is necessary. The petitioner has filed an Election Petition under Sections 80A and 81A read with Sections 100 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 challenging the election of the respondent, Shri Kanwar Karan Singh to the Delhi Legislative Assembly, from Single Member Constituency No.AC 18, Model Town, NCT of Delhi, the result of which was declared on 08.12.2008. Paragraphs 6(a) of the petition, upon which th...
Tag this Judgment!Gita Kwatra Vs. State 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 judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 28th September, 2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge allowing an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act moved by the respondents no.2 and 3 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the court.2. In this case, respondents no.2 and 3 had assailed an order dated 5th February 2010 passed by Special Executive Magistrate by filing a revision petition. However, the petitioner herein took an objection that a revision petition would not be maintainable as an appeal would lie against the order of Special Executive Magistrate. On this, the respondents withdrew the revision petition with liberty to file an appeal. Thereafter, respondents no.2 and 3 herein filed an appeal along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking con...
Tag this Judgment!Balbir Singh Vs. State of 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 judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 12th August, 2010 passed by competent authority declining an application of the petitioner for grant of furlough on the basis of adverse police report. The police report showed that the petitioner was a resident of Trilok Vihar, where his mother was residing. The mother of the petitioner had already entered into an agreement to sell the residence and she could leave the place any time. There was every possibility that if the petitioner was released, he may escape the clutches of law and may not report back to undergo imprisonment. It was also reported that the Mohalla where his mother used to live was under terror of the petitioner and many people were not willing to talk due to fear of the petitioner. The people living in th...
Tag this Judgment!Surender Kumar Vs. Customs
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. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the complaint case no.153/199 dated 6th December 1999 under Section 135(1) (B) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that in the same complaint one K.L. Gupta was also arrayed with him as an accused. Adjudication proceedings in his case and K.L. Gupta's case were initiated and vide order dated 2nd December 2005, the adjudicating authority exonerated him and K.L. Gupta of the allegations made in the complaint. Mr. K.L. Gupta preferred a writ petition before this Court for quashing the complaint against him on the basis of adjudication order and the writ petition of Mr. K.L. Gupta being Crl. MC No.2638 of 2007 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 14th May, 2008 and the complaint as against Mr. K.L. Gupta was quashed. 2. I have ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surinder 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 judgment should be reported in Digest?1. By way of this appeal, the appellant M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. seeks to impugn the award dated 2nd April, 2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of ` 2,40,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till realization to the legal representatives of Smt. Sushila, hereinafter referred to as the deceased. 2. The facts which are not in dispute are that on 19.01.2001 at about 2.45 p.m., the deceased was travelling as pillion rider on scooter No.DL-8S-M-7431, along with her husband, when the scooter was hit by the offending truck No.MP-07-B-9279, being driven in a rash and negligent manner from the back side. The deceased/pillion rider sustained fatal injuries and on a petition filed by the legal representatives under Section 166 read ...
Tag this Judgment!Siddharth Dhingra Vs. State 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 judgment should be reported in Digest?1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR 760/2007, under Section 380/406/420/448/452/506/120B IPC, P.S. Punjabi Bagh.2. The FIR is sought to be quashed on the ground that the matter in dispute was purely civil in nature and the respondents in connivance with each-other has given it a criminal colour by playing fraud upon the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.3. No doubt a civil suit filed by the petitioner for his alleged rights was pending in this court being CS(OS) No. 851 of 2005. However, it was a case of fraud, trespass and cheating. The respondent No. 3 had earlier made a complaint to police in the year 2006 on the same facts and when police did not register a case, the respondent filed a Writ Petition bearing No. W.P. (Crl.) No. 1280 of 2006. The same was disposed of by this Court on the groun...
Tag this Judgment!