Delhi Court January 2012 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.
Gulshan Kumar Batra Vs. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Govt. of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
George Paracken: 1. The applicant has made this Original Application against the impugned memorandum No. F.7[04]/2004/DOV/1195 dated 25.2.2010 proposing to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The statement of charge against him was as under: “Sh. G.K.Batra while functioning as Tehsildar, Najafgarh during the period September 1996 to January 1998 committed gross misconduct in as much as he effected mutation of land comprising in Khasra No.36/19 (4-16), 20/1(1-0), 21/1(1-12), 21/2(2-4) 22 min (3-16) total measuring 13 Bigha 08 Biswa situated in Village Paprawat, Tehsil Najafgarh on the basis of a sale deed executed at Bomay by somebody else other than the Bhoomidhar owner and also submitted/signed by some one else other than the applicant for mutation on 17th October, 1996, with regard to the sale of land. Shri G.K.Batra passed the order of mutation in the back date in violation of the circular dated 3rd October 1996 issued by ADM (Revenue) which imp...
Pawan Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. Rev.P. 587/2009 and Crl. M.A 12823/2003(Stay) % Reserved on: 12/12/ 2011 Decided on: 3rd January, 2012 PAWAN KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Randhir Jain and Mr. Dhananjai Jain, Advocates versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State with SI Harkesh Gauba. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J..1. In the present petition the Petitioner assails the order dated 21st October, 2009 directing framing of charges under Section 182/341 IPC against the Petitioner..2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the date of alleged offence is 16th November, 2005, the FIR was registered on 18th March, 2006 and the cognizance was taken on 10th October, 2007. Since there was no allegation for offence under Section 505 IPC in the FIR, the period of limitation was not three years but two years and hence the cognizance beyond the period of limitation was bad in law. There is no...
Unknown Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 12.12.2011 Pronounced on: 03.01.2012 + BAIL APPLN. 967/2011 NARESH JAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.C Buttan and Mr. Himanshu Bhuttan, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for State with Insp. Jominder Singh PS Model Town Mr. Rajesh Khanna, Advocate for complainant And + W.P.(CRL) 736/2009 NARESH JAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.C Buttan and Mr. Himanshu Bhuttan, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC for state Mr. Rajesh Khanna, Advocate for complainant M.L. MEHTA, J..1. This order shall dispose of above mentioned writ petition and bail application filed by the petitioner. The writ petition is filed for quashing of FIR No. 76/2009 and order dated 21.02.209 of MM whereby the learned MM had directed for registration of FIR under section 153(6) of Cr. P.C. against the petitioner under section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. W.P.(Crl.) No736. .2009 and Bail Ap...
Surinder Singh Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2137/2010 Reserved on: 19.12.2011 Pronounced on: 03.01.2012 SURINDER SINGH ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Pradeep Dhingra, Advocate. versus STATE and ANR. ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Fizani Husain, APP. Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate for R2 and R3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J..1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the order dated 01st July, 2010 of learned M.M. and all the proceedings arising therefrom..2. Vide the impugned order, the learned M.M. allowed the application under Section 156(3) CrPC of the complainants and directed the police to investigate and register case against the petitioner..3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner and his mother Viran Bai (now deceased) got the property bearing No. D-236, Defence Colony, New Delhi mutated in their names on 14.1.1989 from the office of the L and DO by Crl.M.C. 2137/2010 Page 1 of 12 submitting documents such as will of th...
Reserved On:22nd November, 20 Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. A. 408/2010 and Crl.M.B. 936/2010 % Reserved on:22nd November, 2011 Decided on: 3rd January, 2012 NAEEM ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for State Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA.1. By the present appeal the Appellant lays a challenge to the judgment dated 11th March, 2010 whereby the Appellant and the co-accused Javed were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 394/397/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 17th March, 2010 directing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for offences punishable under Sections 397/34 IPC and 394/34 IPC. The amount of fine is stated to have been paid. No appeal has been filed by co-accused Javed..2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 5th January, 2007 an information was received vide DD No.27. that three/four persons have committed robbery...
Mukesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. No. 3549/2007 % Judgment reserved on: 27th September,2011 Judgment delivered on:03rd January, 2012 MUKESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through:Mr. J.P. Sengh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sumit Batra and Mr.Amit Bhardwaj, Advs. versus STATE ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP with SI Rajeshwar, police station Connaught Place, New Delhi in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J..1. The instant petition is being filed to assail the impugned order dated 26.06.2007 whereby ld. MM has summoned the petitioner for the offences under Section 167/201/218/420 read with Section 511/120B Indian Penal Code, 1860..2. I note, vide order dated 02.05.2008 the proceedings before the Trial Court were stayed..3. The petitioner in the instant petition has raised legal issues amongst other that prosecution has failed to obtain sanction as required Crl.M.C.3549/2007 Page 1 of 16 under Section 197 Cr. P.C. and under Section 140 of the ...
M/S Praja Mechanicals Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/S. Vardaan Agrotech Pvt. Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.PET. 296/2007 and CO. APPL. 1290/2007 M/S PRAJA MECHANICALS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, Advocate versus M/S. VARDAAN AGROTECH PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Advocate. % Reserved on: 14th December, 2011 Date of Decision: 3rd January, 2012 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT.1. Present winding up petition has been filed under Section 433(e) read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'Act') for winding up of the respondent company. The application being CA 1290/2007 has been filed seeking appointment of a Provisional Liquidator..2. The facts as borne out from the petition are that the respondent company on 31st December, 2003 had placed a purchase order on the petitioner for conveyor system 4x4. x6. along with accessories, source raising mechanism, pressure plate for its irradiation plant at Sonepat Co. Pet.296. of 2007 Page 1 of 13 for a consideration of ...
Schenker India Pvt Ltd Vs. Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 03.01.2012 + RFA(OS) 77/2010 SCHENKER INDIA PVT LTD ..... Appellant versus SIRPUR PAPER MILLS LTD ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate, Amicus Curiae with Mr. Ashutosh Dubey and Mr. Love K. Sharma, Advocates For the Respondent : Ms. Saloni Nagoria, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J (ORAL).1. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 02.02.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the suit has been dismissed. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment has dismissed the suit broadly on two grounds : (i). firstly, that the suit is barred by limitation and; (ii). secondly, that the delay in re-filing the suit of nearly 204 days, did not deserve to be condoned, in the facts and circumstances of the case..2. The broad facts, in the background of which, ...
Naveen Kumar @ Babloo Vs. Satyavrat Punia and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
$~R-2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. Rev. P. 690/2002 % Judgment delivered on: 3rd January, 2012 NAVEEN KUMAR @ BABLOO. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Ms. Amita Kalkal, Advocates versus SATYAVRAT PUNIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Javed Hashmi, Advocate for R1 to R4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral).1. The instant petition is being filed by the petitioner while challenging the judgment dated 15th September, 2001, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted all the accused persons/respondents from the charges..2. The petitioners were charged under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accordingly, under Section 212 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Charges were framed..3. In respect of the charges against the respondents/accused persons, prosecution produced for examination as many as 23 witnesses..4. The learned trial judge has recorded that as per the prosecution witness PW...
Lokesh Chandela Vs. State Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. Appeal No. 470/2011 and Crl.M.B. 624/2011 % Reserved on: 9th November, 2011 Decided on: 3rd January, 2012 LOKESH CHANDELA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S. Satyanarayana, Adv. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI and ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State. Mr. Sunil Fernandes Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Pathak, Adv. For BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd./R-2. + Crl. Appeal No. 471/2011 and Crl.M.B. 625/2011 LOKESH CHANDELA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S. Satyanarayana, Adv. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI and ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State. Mr. Sunil Fernandes Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Pathak, Adv. For BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd./R-2. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA.1. By these appeals the Appellant lays a challenge to the impugned judgment dated 25th and 28th February, 2011 whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 135 read with Section 150 of the Crl. Appeal Nos.470. an...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »