Delhi Court December 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.
Ramesh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on :25.11.2013 Judgment Delivered on:02. 12.2013 CRL.A. 285/2000 RAMESH ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Tarunesh Kumar, Mr.Neelkanth Kumar and Mr.Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP. AND + CRL.A. 388/2000 RAM GULAM ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Tarunesh Kumar, Mr.Neelkanth Kumar and Mr.Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: CRL.A.Nos. 285/2000 & 388/2000 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 24.12.1999 whereby they had been convicted under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 302 IPC; they had been sentenced to undergo rig...
Shubh Gautam Vs. Nabanita Mukherjee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:2. d December, 2013. + RFA5602013 & CM No.19100/2013 (for condonation of 2 days delay in filing the appeal) SHUBH GAUTAM Through: ..... Appellant Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi and Ms. Anjali Chaturvedi, Advocates. Versus NABANITA MUKHERJEE Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ..... Respondent RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 3rd August, 2013 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ) (Central)-01, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi of dismissal of CS No.271/2009 (Unique I.D. No.02401C0868302006) filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs.5 lakhs from the respondent.2. Though this is a first appeal and is coming up before this Court today for the first time but the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff having along with the memorandum of appeal filed all the relevant Trial Court record and being prima facie of the opinion formed on the basis of reading of the judgment that the is...
M.A. Panjwani Vs. Registrar of Companies and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:27. h November, 2013 Date of decision:2. d December, 2013 % + CO. PET. No.174/2013 M.A. PANJWANI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ateev Mathur with Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocates. versus REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. K.S. Pradhan, Dy. ROC. Ms. Maneesha Dhir with Ms. Mithu Jain, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT R. V. EASWAR, J.:1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner i.e. M.A. Panjwani under Section 560 (6) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 9 & 92 of the Company Court Rules, 1959. The prayer in the petition is for directions to the Registrar of Companies, who is the respondent No.1, for restoring the name of respondent No.2 i.e. M/s. Alfa Impex Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Company) to the register of companies maintained by respondent No.1.2. It is necessary to briefly refer to the events that resulted in filing the present petition. The petitioner was residing i...
Mohd.israr Vs. State Nct Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2013
$~R-30 & 31. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 163/2005 % Judgment dated 02.12.2013 MOHD.ISRAR Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Pankaj Verma, Amicus Curiae versus STATE NCT DELHI Through : + ..... Respondent Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, Adv. CRL.A. 170/2005 PANNU KHAN @ HYDER KAHN ..... Appellant Through : Ms.Priyanka Kapoor, Amicus Curiae versus STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. None is present on behalf of the appellants despite the matters having been called. Notice issued to the appellants has been received back unserved with the report that the appellants are not found at the given address. Accordingly, Mr.Pankaj Verma, Advocate, who is present in Court, is appointed as an Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant, Mohd. Israr, in CRL.A. 163/2005 and Ms.Priyanka Kapoor, Advocate, who is present in Court, is appointed as an Amicus Curiae on behalf of appellant, Pannu Khan @ Hyder Khan in CR...
Pannu Khan @ Hyder Kahn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2013
$~R-30 & 31. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 163/2005 % Judgment dated 02.12.2013 MOHD.ISRAR Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Pankaj Verma, Amicus Curiae versus STATE NCT DELHI Through : + ..... Respondent Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, Adv. CRL.A. 170/2005 PANNU KHAN @ HYDER KAHN ..... Appellant Through : Ms.Priyanka Kapoor, Amicus Curiae versus STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. None is present on behalf of the appellants despite the matters having been called. Notice issued to the appellants has been received back unserved with the report that the appellants are not found at the given address. Accordingly, Mr.Pankaj Verma, Advocate, who is present in Court, is appointed as an Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant, Mohd. Israr, in CRL.A. 163/2005 and Ms.Priyanka Kapoor, Advocate, who is present in Court, is appointed as an Amicus Curiae on behalf of appellant, Pannu Khan @ Hyder Khan in CR...
Food Inspector / Food Safety Officer Vs. Vinod Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2013
$~12. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 694/2013 % Judgment dated 02.12.2013 FOOD INSPECTOR / FOOD SAFETY OFFICER ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Manoj Ohri, Adv. versus VINOD JAIN ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI ORDER0212.2013 % CRL.M.A.18117/2013 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.2. Application stands disposed of. CRL.L.P. 694/2013 3. Present leave to appeal petition has been filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal dated 9.11.2013 passed by learned ACMM, Delhi.4. The facts of this case, as noticed by the learned ACMM in the judgment, are as under:1. The present complaint has been filed on 10.12.2002 by the Delhi Administration through FI Ms.Usha Kiran against the above said accused. It is averred in the complaint that on 24.12.2001 at about 4:15 PM, FI Shri Jeet Ram purchased a sample of Dal Masoor, a food article for analysis from accused Vinod Jain from the aforesaid premises, where the said f...
Usha Iron and Ferro Metal Corp Ltd Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2013
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:02. 12.2013 + ITA1322011, C.M. APPL.1020/2011 USHA IRON & FERRO METAL CORP LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate. versus CIT ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The assessee in this appeal under Section 268 of the Income Tax Act urges that two questions of law arises for consideration. The first, it is submitted, pertains to the correctness of the ITAT directions to add Rs.22 lakhs towards alleged bogus freight and forwarding expenditure by an estimating exercise. The second question of law urged is that the lower authority fell into error in adding Rs.6,84,22,895/- on account of outstanding credit balance in the name of one M/s Smriti Sales Private Limited.2. The facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the present appeal are that on 14.02.2001, the appellants premises...
State Vs. Lucky Bedi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2013
$~16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :2. d December, 2013 % + CRL.L.P. 700/2013 STATE Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.Manoj Ohri, Adv. versus LUCKY BEDI ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) CRL.M.A.18135/2013 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.2. Application stands disposed of. CRL.M.A.18133/2013 & CRL.M.A.18134/2013.3. By CRL.M.A.18133/2013, the petitioner seeks condonation of delay in filing leave to appeal petition and CRL.M.A.18134/2013 in re-filing leave to appeal.4. Heard and for the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed. Delay in filing and re-filing leave to appeal petition is condoned.5. Application stands disposed of. CRL.L.P. NO.700/2013.6. Present leave to appeal petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal dated 21.1.2013 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate.7. Mr.Ohri, learned counsel for the petitioner, ...
Food Inspector / Food Safety Officer Vs. R K Kaushik and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2013
$~11. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 691/2013 FOOD INSPECTOR / FOOD SAFETY OFFICER ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Manoj Ohri, Adv. versus R K KAUSHIK & ORS. ..... Respondents Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI ORDER0212.2013 % CRL.M.A.18082/2013 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.2. Application stands disposed of. CRL.M.A.18081/2013 3. By the present application, the petitioner seeks condonation of delay in filing leave to appeal petition.4. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing present leave to appeal petition is condoned.5. Application stands disposed of. CRL.L.P. NO.691/2013.6. Present leave to appeal petition has been filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal dated 6.4.2013 passed by learned ACMM, Delhi.7. The facts of this case, as noticed by the learned ACMM in the judgment, are as under:1. The present complaint has been filed on 02.02.2001 by the Delhi Administ...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›