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.
Rakesh and ors. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:4. h January, 2013 + CRL. M.C. 9/2013 RAKESH & ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. V.S. Rana, Adv. for P-1. Mr. Vijender Kharb, Adv. for P-2. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) CRL.MA.57/2013 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The Application is allowed. CRL. M.C. 9/2013 and CRL.MA.56/2013 (stay) 1. This is a Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) preferred by the Petitioners for quashing of FIR No.386/2010, under Section 420/468/471/120B IPC, Police Station Najafgarh and consequential proceedings arising out of the same.2. FIR No.386/2010 was registered on the basis of directions issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Complainant (Petitioner No.2) had purchased certain land measuring 3 Bighas and 4...
Pawan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:04. 01.2013 CRL. A. 144/2010 LAXMAN @ JANGA ... Appellant versus STATE ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent /State : Mr Siddharth Aggarwal : Mr Sanjay Lao AND + CRL. A. 850/2010 PAWAN ... Appellant versus STATE ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent /State : Ms Charu Verma : Mr Sanjay Lao CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MS JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1.These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 30.11.2009 in Sessions Case No. 36/2009 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the appellants Pawan and Laxman have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and they have also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363/34 IPC. The said case arose out of FIR 391/2003 registered a...
Gopi Kant Mishra and ors. Vs. Jitender Kumar Talwar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:4. h January, 2013 + CRL. REV. P. 598/2012 GOPI KANT MISHRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. P.K. Devpayer, Adv. versus JITENDER KUMAR TALWAR Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL ..... Respondent JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) CRL.MA.18091/2012 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The Application is allowed. CRL. REV. P. 598/2012 1. The Petitioner challenges an order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, East whereby an application to initiate contempt proceedings under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (the Act) moved by the Petitioner was dismissed.2. The Petitioners grievance is that in spite of repeated opportunities granted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, copy of the complaint and other documents was not supplied by the Respondent (the Complainant) to the Petitioners who had been summoned as accused in the Complaint case.3. Mere non su...
Defence Estate Officer Vs. Lac and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: December 13, 2012 Pronounced on: January 04, 2013 + (i) R.F.A. No. 838/2002 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Ms.Sonia Mathur and Mr.Sushil Dubey, Advocates versus ADIL SINGH & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Ravinder Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ajoy B.Kalia, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms.K.K. Kiran, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Rajesh Yadav and Ms.Ruchira, Advocates for Respondent No.4. + (ii) LA. APP. No. 305/2007 DEFENCE ESTATES OFFICER ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Sonia Mathur and Mr.Sushil Dubey, Advocates versus LAC & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms.K.K. Kiran, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Rajesh Yadav and Ms.Ruchira, Advocates for Respondent No. 2(a) to 2(d). + (iii) R.F.A. No. 324/2003 DEFENCE ESTATES OFFICER ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Sonia Mathur and Mr.Sushil Dubey, Advocates versus LAC & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms.K.K. Kir...
Shanti Kiran India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Trade and Tax Deptt.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % RESERVED ON:07. 08.2012 PRONOUNCED ON:04. 01.2013 ST.APPL. 34-39/2012 + SHANTI KIRAN INDIA PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vinod Srivastava with Mr. Ravi Chandhok, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER TRADE & TAX DEPTT. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. A.K. Babbar, Advocate. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT 1 The present judgment will dispose of six appeals preferred under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereafter called VAT Act) challenging a common order of the Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal (VAT Tribunal) dated 05.01.2012. The question of law urged in the present case is: Whether in the facts and circumstances, the VAT authorities were justified in disallowing the input credit claimed by the appellant, a purchasing dealer.2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the case are that the appellant trades in electrical goods and is a registered dealer under the VAT A...
Lets Engineering and Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manoj Das
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 250/2012 LETS ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Goswami, Advocate versus MANOJ DAS Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Arunav Patnaik, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL JUDGMENT : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.1. By way of this petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Petitioner LETS Engineering Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. (for short LETS) prays for appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator to decide the claims of LETS as set out in the petition against the Respondent, viz., Digital Analysis and Software Solutions (for short DASS) arising out of the disputes which have arisen between LETS and DASS.2. The facts as narrated in the petition are as follows. LETS is since long been engaged in execution of outsourced Digital Analysis and Software Solutions for its customers in UK, USA and other countries, and has certain indigenously developed pr...
Prem Pal Singh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 857/2008 Decided on:4. h January, 2013 % PREM PAL SINGH Through ..... Appellant Mr. Rajat Navet, Amicus Curiae versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Through ..... Respondent Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for State. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MS. MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL) 1. By the present appeal the Appellant challenges the judgment dated 26th August, 2008 convicting the Appellant for offences under Section 498A IPC and 304B IPC and the order on sentence dated 27 th August, 2008 sentencing the Appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years without a separate sentence being imposed in respect of offence under Section 498A IPC.2. Learned amicus curiae for the Appellant contends that the conviction of the Appellant is based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of PW1 the brother of the deceased. The uncle of the deceased who had in fact brought up the deceased after the death of her parents has not supported the prosecution version. Moreov...
Shanti Kiran India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Trade and Tax Deptt.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % RESERVED ON:07. 08.2012 PRONOUNCED ON:04. 01.2013 ST.APPL. 34-39/2012 + SHANTI KIRAN INDIA PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vinod Srivastava with Mr. Ravi Chandhok, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER TRADE & TAX DEPTT. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. A.K. Babbar, Advocate. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT 1 The present judgment will dispose of six appeals preferred under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereafter called VAT Act) challenging a common order of the Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal (VAT Tribunal) dated 05.01.2012. The question of law urged in the present case is: Whether in the facts and circumstances, the VAT authorities were justified in disallowing the input credit claimed by the appellant, a purchasing dealer.2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the case are that the appellant trades in electrical goods and is a registered dealer under the VAT A...
Union of India Through General Manager Northern Ra Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
$~2 & 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: January 04, 2013 + WP(C) 4300/2012 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAYS & ANR. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.V.S.R.Krishna, Advocate with Mr.Abhiskeh Yadav, Advocate. versus SITA RAM Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Manjeet Reen and Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocates. AND WP(C) 6339/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.V.S.R.Krishna, Advocate with Mr.Abhiskeh Yadav, Advocate. versus MANASH SARKAR Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.H.K.Bajpai, Advocate for Ms.Meenu Mainee, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. A common question arises for consideration in the two captioned writ petitions which challenge two separate orders, but on the same subject, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing OA No.665/2011 and OA No.3041/2011 filed by the respon...
M/S J.J. Traders Vs. M/S. Sal Marketing and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decision on:4. h January, 2013 % + CS(OS) 1952/2010 M/S J.J.TRADERS Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. A.P. Dhamija and Mr. Sarad Singhania, Advocates. Versus M/S. SAL MARKETING & ANR Through: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ..... Defendants RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.I.A. No.22213/2012 (for preponment) For the reasons stated in the application; the same is allowed. The date of 25th March, 2013 is cancelled and the suit is taken up on board for hearing. The application stands disposed of. CS(OS) 1952/2010 1. This suit for recovery of Rs.27,80,000/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum, though initially filed under Order XXXVII of CPC, was vide order dated 18th August, 2011 ordered to be treated as an ordinary suit. Recovery of money is sought from the two defendants jointly and severally. Defendant No.1 is stated to be a partnership firm of which defendant No.2 is a partner. Summons sent to the defendant No.2 were serv...
- ‹ Prev
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- Next ›
- Last »