Delhi Court January 2013 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.
Mohd. Mustaq Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 199/2011 Reserved on:6. h December, 2012 Date of Decision:24. h January, 2013 % MOHD. MUSTAQ ..... Appellant Through Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate. Versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG SANJIV KHANNA, J: Mohd. Mustaq, by this first appeal, challenges his conviction vide impugned judgment dated 20th October, 2010, for murder of Manju and pilfered valuables and cash, on 1st September, 2006, under Section 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short). By the order of sentence dated 27th October, 2010, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and Rs.10,000/- as fine with stipulation that he will undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months in case of default in payment of fine, and Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.7,000/- w...
Sharat Kumar Dutta Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
#18 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TEST.CAS. 41/2012 SHARAT KUMAR DUTTA Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Lokesh Kumar, ASdvocate. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent None Date of Decision:24. h January, 2013. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral):1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 232 read with Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of letters of administration. The prayer clause is reproduced hereinbelow:The Petitioner most respectfully prays that Letters of Administration with the Will annexed, dated 28.01.2006, of Mrs. Bimla Dutta W/o. Late Dr. Shib Chandra Dutta, having effect throughout India, be granted to him.2. It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner is the son of the deceased Mrs. Bimla Dutta who had expired on 29th January, 2006. The deceased is stated to have executed a registered Will dated 28th January, 2006 which was duly attested by Mr. Rajeev Mital and Dr. Hemlata...
Maulana Mahmood Asad Madani Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7545/2012 MAULANA MAHMOOD ASAD MADANI ..... Petitioner Through: Mohd. Moonis Abbasi, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASG and Mr. S. Datta, CGSC with Mr Kunal and Ms Ritika, Advs.for R-1. Ms Neha Kapoor Khanna, Adv for Mr Nazmi Waziri, Standing Counsel, GNCTD for R-7 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN % 1. ORDER 24 01.2013 The grievance of the petitioner is that the film Innocence of Muslims and its variants, which portray the Prophet of Islam, Prophet Mohammad, in an insulting, disrespectful, derogatory, defamatory, offensive, crude & humiliating manner, is being shown, exhibited, transmitted or broadcasted in India on Internet website Youtube.com and other social networking sites. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid film W.P.(C) 7545/2012 page 1of 6 abuses the right to freedom of speech and expression and hurts the religious feelings and sentiment...
Shivalik Bimetal Controls Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on :24. 01.2013 W.P.(C) 7087/2012 SHIVALIK BIMETAL CONTROLS LTD ..... Petitioner versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Prakash Chand Yadav, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 28.03.2012 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) whereby the assessment for assessment year 2005-06 is sought to be reopened. The petitioner on receipt of the said notice filed its objections on 08.05.2012. But, those objections were rejected by an order dated 24.08.2012.2. The purported reasons for issuance of the impugned notice under section 148 of the said Act read as under: Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 19.04.2007 on total inc...
SachIn Singh and anr. Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:31. t October, 2012 Pronounced on:24. h January, 2013 + MAC.APP. 844/2010 SACHIN SINGH & ANR. Through: ...... Appellants Mr. Niraj Jha, Adv. with Mr. Manish Maini, Adv. versus RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. .... Respondents Through: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Adv. + MAC.APP. 846/2010 SACHIN SINGH & ANR. Through: ...... Appellants Mr. Niraj Jha, Adv. with Mr. Manish Maini, Adv. versus RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. .... Respondents Through: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.1. These Appeals arise out of a judgment dated 31.07.2010 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) while awarding compensation in favour of the Respondents (the Claimants) held that the insured (Respondent Ajay Pal) the owner of the offending vehicle committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by permitting its driver, Sachin Singh to drive it with...
Anant Prasad and ors. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : January 02, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on : January 24, 2013 + WP(C) 3126/2001 ANANT PRASAD & ORS. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Rishi Kesh and Mr.Rajiv Dewan, Advocates. versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The factual backdrop leading to filing of the present petition is that the Home Guards organization was raised in India in the erstwhile State of Bombay in the year 1946 for the purpose of assisting the police in controlling civil disturbances and communal riots. With the passage of time the service of the Home Guards was utilized throughout India for purposes as diverse as maintenance of law and order and providing help in natural calamities like floods, fires, famines etc.2. The Delhi Home Guards organization has been raised under the Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947 as ext...
Vinod Goenka Vs. the Directorate of Enforcement
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:24. 01.2013 WP(C) 401/2013 & CM No. 802/2013 SHAHID BALWA ......PETITIONER Vs THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT + ....RESPONDENTS WP(C) 402/2013 & CM No. 804/2013 VINOD GOENKA ......PETITIONER Vs THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ....RESPONDENTS ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Tikku, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Mudit Jain, Mr. Ashish Dhingra and Mr. Hemant Chauhan, Advoctes For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Garg, Special Counsel with Mr.Sanjiv Aggarwal, AD (PMLA) CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J 1.The aforementioned writ petitions lay challenge to a common order dated 03.01.2013 passed by the Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi (in short DOE). The impugned order has resulted in, the request made by the petitioners by way of a common application dated 12.12.2012, for cross examination of persons whose names and details are set out in para...
SachIn Singh and anr Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:7. h January, 2013 Pronounced on:24. h January, 2013 + MAC.APP.846/2010 SACHIN SINGH & ANR Through: ...... Appellants Mr. Niraj Jha with Mr. Manish Maini, Advocates versus RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. .... Respondents Through: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.1. The present Appeal is allowed in terms of the judgment passed today in MAC.APP.844/2010 titled SACHIN SINGH & ANR. v. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS..2. For detailed order, please see the above mentioned judgment. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JANUARY 24 2013 pst...
Bilal Vs. State (Govt of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:7. h January, 2013 Pronounced on:24. h January, 2013 + CRL.A. 1239/2012 BILAL Through: ...... Appellant Ms. Saahila Lamba, Adv. versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .... Respondent Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.1. The present Appeal is dismissed in terms of the judgment passed today in Crl.A. 605/2012 titled RATTAN @ RATAN SINGH v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI).2. For detailed order, please see the above mentioned judgment. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JANUARY 24 2013 pst...
National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Vijay Kishan Barik and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:23. d January, 2013 Pronounced on:24. h January, 2013 + MAC.APP. 911/2012 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Through: Ms.Namita Sharma Bhardwaj, Advocates versus ... Appellant & Ms.Preeti VIJAY KISHAN BARIK & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Navneet Goyal & Mr.Pawan Kumar, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.1. This Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 10.05.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of `6,83,300/- was awarded in favour of Respondents No.1 to 4 for the death of Arti, an unmarried lady, who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 07.03.2011.2. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company; thus the same has attained finality.3. The only ground of challenge is that Respondents No.1 to 4 were not financially dependent on deceased Arti, and therefore, the Respondents being the legal r...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »