Delhi Court April 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Mohd. Shakeel Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. The present appeal is being filed while challenging the judgment dated 27.03.2009 whereby the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 366 / 376 (2) (f) Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Also challenged the Order on Sentence dated 31.03.2009, whereby the ld. Trial Court has sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 366 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. has also extended to the appellant. 4. Brief facts of the case are that vide FIR no. 64/2006 dated 27.01.2006 case was registered on the basis of statement made by Tabassum, elder sister of the child victim (name of the child victim withheld to conceal her ident...
Mohan Singh and Others Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
1. By the present petition the Petitioners, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and wife of brother-in-law of the deceased, challenge the order dated 23rd October, 2009 directing framing of charge for offence under Section 304-B/ 34 IPC against the Petitioners. The grievance of the Petitioners is limited to the extent that though the charge under Section 498-A IPC is prima facie made out against the Petitioners, however no charge under Section 304-B IPC is made out. The Petitioners were in fact discharged for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and a charge under Section 498-A IPC was framed against them on 22nd February, 2007 and the husband of the deceased was charged for offence under Section 498-A/306 IPC. However, in a revision filed before this Court by the State vide order dated 26th March, 2009 this Court directed the Learned Trial Court to examine the matter in the light of the statements of the witnesses, who had been examined by that time and directed re-hea...
Praveen and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
S.P.GARG, J. 1. In these appeals by Praveen (A-1) and Deva (A-2), the judgment dated 26.11.2011 and order on sentence dated 29.11.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No. 116/2010 have been impugned. They were convicted for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of `5,000/- each. A-2 was in addition convicted for the offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years with a fine of `5,000/-. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently. 2. The criminal law was set into motion at around 10.29 P.M. on 07.07.2002 when Daily Diary (DD) Entry No.55-B (Ex.PW-12/A) was recorded by Constable Rakesh Kumar at police station Sultan Puri on getting information from Constable Rakesh of PCR that an individual was stabbed at Bus Stand, Sultan Puri. The investigation was assigned to SI Vinod Kumar who with Constable Jagdish reached the spot. At 10.40 P.M. Dail...
VipIn Kumar Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
Anil Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of order dated 10th March, 2011 whereby the request of the petitioner for Review Medical Board had been accepted and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Review Medical Board Examination at FHQ, BSF Hospital-II, Tigri Camp, New Delhi on 25th March, 2011. The petitioner has also sought direction to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner to the post of ASI (Steno)/Head Constable (MIN) in BSF. 2. The relevant facts for comprehending the disputes raised by the petitioner are that the petitioner had applied for the post of ASI (Steno)/Head Constable (MIN) in the BSF. The respondents thereafter, issued the letter dated 15th August, 2010 to the petitioner, bearing Roll No.11602767, directing him to appear in the written examination which was to be held on 19th September, 2010 at 25 Bn. BSF, Chhawla Camp, New Delhi-110071. According to the petitioner, he qualified the examination and after qualifying the writte...
Atma Ram Properties P. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Escorts Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
Indermeet Kaur, J. 1. Impugned judgment is dated 10.07.2002; it was an order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) endorsing the findings returned by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 01.03.2002 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord M/s. Atma Ram Properties seeking eviction of his tenant M/s. Escorts Ltd. on the ground of sub-letting as contained in Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been dismissed. These are the two concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below. 2. At the outset, this court is conscious of the fact that it is sitting in its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The right of second appeal has since been abrogated; Section 39 of the DRCA stands deleted; until and unless a patent illegality or a perversity is pointed out in the judgment of the court below, interference by the High Court in its powers of superintendence is not called for. 3. It is in this context that the ...
Sushil @ Monu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. Vide instant appeal, the both appellant have assailed the impugned judgment dated 08.02.2011 whereby they were held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 whereas appellant Jitender in addition to above held guilty for the offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Also challenged the order on sentence dated 15.02.2011 whereby both of them sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and to pay fine of `3,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Appellant Jitender further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 397 Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. Learned Trial Judge has directed that the substantial sentence awarded to the appellant Jitender shall run concurrently and the benefit under Section 428 Cr. P.C. extended to both the appellants. 5. Since both the appellants ha...
Kishan Lal and Another Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral) 1. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have challenged the impugned judgment dated 12.03.2004 and order on sentence dated 16.03.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, vide which all the appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months, for having committed the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC. 2. In brief the case of prosecution is that on 29.09.2000 at about 10.00 p.m opposite Gali No.11 near House No.4/2391, Bihari Colony, Delhi, all the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, inflicted injuries to Sohan Pal (since deceased), Om Prakash, Gamender and Anil Kumar with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if any of the injured would have died due to said injuries, they would have been guilty of the murder. 3. During the course of hearing of the appeals, the appellants an...
Gandharb Singh Bhadwal Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
PRATIBHA RANI 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC feeling aggrieved from the order dated 22.12.2011 passed by learned ASJ whereby the revision petition preferred by him against the order of learned MM dated 17.7.2009 was dismissed. 2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that in the year 1996, he deposited Rs.55,000/- for one year in his name and in the names of his son and wife with M/s McDowell Krest Finance Limited. Subsequently, the name of the company was changed to M/s Krest Finlease Ltd. 3. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- in his own name, Rs.15,000/- in the name of his son and Rs.10,000/- in the name of his wife in the year 1996. The interest accrued on the fixed deposit was assured to be 15.19% per annum. The fixed deposit was to mature in the year 1997. The FDR was forcibly renewed and retained despite repeated reminders. He contacted the Company Law Board to get back the money, however, vide letter dated 20.1.2004, it was informe...
Araav Porwal Vs. the Mother International School and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
Hima Kohli, J. Oral: 1. This petition has been filed by the minor, Master Araav Porwal, through his father and natural guardian, Mr. P.S. Porwal, praying inter alia for directing respondents No.1 and 2/Mother’s International School and respondent No.3/Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, to implement the order dated 07.04.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Disabilities) on a complaint filed on 10.03.2011 regarding the non-admission of the petitioner, who is a hearing impaired child, in the Pre-Primary Class in the respondent No.1/school for the academic session 2012-13. The petitioner further seeks directions to the respondents to grant him admission in the respondent No.1/school in accordance with law. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, Master Araav Porwal, being hearing impaired in both ears to the extent of 100% and thus a person with disability as defined under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection and Full Particip...
D.D.A. Vs. Anant Raj Agencies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. Oral: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. We are concerned in the instant appeal to the findings returned by the learned Arbitrator pertaining to Claim No.4,5,7,11 and 13. The Award is dated September 22, 1997. 3. Appellant‟s objections to the Award, with respect to said claims have been negated by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated February 13, 2007. 4. From the objections filed as also the grounds of appeal urged before us, the pleadings being laconic, unfortunately the issue in its proper perspective was not projected before the learned Single Judge and hence has not found a reflection in the impugned decision. Thus, we are constrained to write an appellate judgment as if we are dealing with the objections to the Award as the Court of first jurisdiction. 5. Claim No.4 in sum of Rs.29,90,000/- was raised by the contractor on the allegation that the contract got prolonged by nearly 44 months on account of delay attributable to DDA. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »