Delhi Court February 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.
Rajesh Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : February 04, 2013 DECIDED ON : February 20, 2013 + CRL.A.No.598/2000 RAJESH ..... Appellant Through : Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate. Versus STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The appellant-Rajesh impugns his conviction in Sessions Case No.66/1999 arising out of FIR No.188/99 registered at Police Station Mansarover Park by which he was found guilty for committing offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine of `5,000/-.2. Allegations against the accused were that on 09.08.1999 at 10:30 A.M. at house not C-26, Gali No.13, Nathu Colony, Shahdara, Delhi, he committed rape upon X (assumed name) aged about three years. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused pleaded innocence. He stated that he was falsely implicated as Xs father was compelling his mother to sell their ho...
Microsoft Corporation and anr. Vs. Mr. Ganesh Wakode and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2243/2009 MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through Ms. Safia Said, Advocate versus MR. GANESH WAKODE AND ORS. Through ..... Defendants None Date of Decision:20. h February, 2013. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J 1.Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyrights, delivery of profits, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery of all plaintiffs unlicenced pirated software. The prayer clause of the present suit is reproduced hereinbelow:I. A Decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, their principal officers, directors, agents, franchisees, servants and all others acting for and on their behalf, from directly or indirectly reproducing/storing/ installing and/or using pirated/unlicensed software programs of the Plaintiff No. 1, thereby Infringing Copyright in the Plaintiffs computer programs/software titles; II. A Decree of Delivery up ...
Faiz Murtaza Ali Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
$~29 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:20. 02.2013 ITA 613/2012 FAIZ MURTAZA ALI ..... Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Dr Rakesh Gupta, Ms Rani Kiyala and Ms Ayushi Pareek, Advs. For the Respondent : Mr Amol Sinha, sr. standing counsel with Mr Anshum Jain, Mr Rahul Kochar and Mr Deepak Anand, Advs. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM 18145/2012 Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. ITA 613/2012 This appeal by the assessee is the second round of litigation before this Court insofar as the assessment year 2002-03 is concerned. The appeal is directed against the order dated 31.05.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.2117/Del./2007. The matter had been remitted to the Tribunal on a limited question. Earlier this Court had heard the ...
Durgesh Kumar Nayak Vs. the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.3374/2011 with CM No.7052/2011 & CM No.7050/2011 % February 20, 2013 DURGESH KUMAR NAYAK ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv. versus THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DWARKA ..... Respondent Through: Dr.Rajeshwar Rao, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner who was admittedly appointed only as an adhoc employee seeks the application of doctrine of last come first go. Originally in the writ petition, various reliefs were claimed including of regularization, but since in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1.adhoc employees cannot be regularized, it could not be disputed on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner who was not appointed against a specific permanent post cannot get regularization because...
Ashish Goel Vs. Railtel Corporation of India Ltd.and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2752/2010 % February 20, 2013 ASHISH GOEL Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Harit Chhabra, Adv. versus RAILTEL CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Biswajit Das, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition seeks refund of the amount of Rs.50,000/- given by the petitioner to the respondent No.1/employer inasmuch as the petitioner left the services within the period of two years, and the terms and conditions were that if the petitioner leaves the service before two years, the petitioner will pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-.2. Before the issue of recovery or entitlement in favour of the petitioner is decided, it will have to be decided whether the respondent has or has not been caused any loss, and if loss has been caused then how much. These aspects are relevant as per Sections 73 and 74 of the Contract Act, 1872 a...
Wazir Singh Mour Vs. Uoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: February 20, 2013 + W.P.(C) 65/2011 WAZIR SINGH MOUR ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Daleep Kumar Dhyani, Adv. versus UOI ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Atul Batra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the legal heirs of the deceased writ petitioner would submit that keeping in view the fact that the deceased petitioner had served the Nation from November 17, 2008 till penalty of removal from service was inflicted upon him on December 30, 2009, the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner would be satisfied if the penalty is converted to one of compulsory retirement with compulsory retirement pension sanctioned as per Rule 40 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972.2. But when confronted with Annexure R-1 which would reveal that the writ petitioner had virtually not worked after March 08, 2007, being perpetually absent and as a ma...
Randhir Singh Vs. Gaon Sabha Maidangarhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :18. 02.2013 Judgment pronounced on :20. 02.2013 LPA 646/2012 RANDHIR SINGH Through ..... Appellant Mr. N.S. Dalal & Mr. D.P. Singh, Advocates Versus GAON SABHA MAIDANGARHI ..... Respondent Through Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN V.K. JAIN, J.1. The appellant before us is in possession of agricultural land measuring two bighas comprised in khasra No. 103 in Revenue Estate of village Maidan Garhi, Delhi. An inspection was carried out by the Village Patwari on 4th February, 2000 and it was found that there existed house, plants of fruits and vegetables and tin shed for fodder cattle on the aforesaid land along with a tubewell. The proceedings under Sec. 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act having been initiated against the appellant, he appeared before the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Assistant and filed a reply. After going through the record and perusi...
Chand Babu Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:20. h February, 2013 + CRL. A. 778/2009 CHAND BABU Through: ..... Appellant Mr. M.M. Rahman, Adv. Appellant produced from JC. versus THE 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.(ORAL) 1. The Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 07.09.2009 and order on sentence dated 08.09.2009 whereby the Appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of `3,000/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of `3,000/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 376 IP...
Ashok Chawla Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Crl. M.C. No. 3548/2011 Date of Decision:20. h February, 2013 + # ! ASHOK CHAWLA ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Bassi, Advocate Versus $ STATE & ANR. .Respondents Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State with Inspector Brijesh Kumar, P.S. Karol Bagh & Crl. M.C. No. 1510/2012 # ! ASHOK CHAWLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Bassi, Advocate Versus $ * STATE & ANR. .Respondents Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN ORDER P.K. BHASIN, J: The petitioner in Crl. M.C.No. 3548/2011 has sought quashing of the order dated 10th October,2011 passed by Shri Ajay Garg, Metropolitan Magistrate(Tis Hazari) in complaint case no. 403/1/10 filed against him and many others by one Smt. Sushila Suryawanshi (respondent no.2 in this petition), whereby registration of an FIR was ordered under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr.P.C. in short) while in Crl. M.C. No. 1510 of 2010 the same petition...
Phenil Sugars Private Ltd. Vs. .
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CO.PET. No. 275 of 2011 Reserved on: January 31, 2013 Decision on: February 20, 2013 PHENIL SUGARS PRIVATE LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit S. Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Uday Kumar, Mr. Mayank Bhughana, Mr. Upendra Prasad, Mr. Sanjay K. Singh and Mr. Naveen Chawla, Advocates. Dr. Manmohan Sharma, Advocate for Intervener/Mr. H.K. Chadha. Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Advocate for Official Liquidator. Mr. K.S. Pradhan, Dy. Registrar of Companies. WITH CO.PET. No. 276 of 2011 BASTI SUGAR MILLS COMPANY LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit S. Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Uday Kumar, Mr. Mayank Bhupana, Mr. Upendra Prasad, Mr. Sanjay K. Singh and Mr. Naveen Chawla, Advocates. Dr. Manmohan Sharma, Advocate for Intervener/Mr. H.K. Chadha. Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Advocate for Official Liquidator Mr. K.S. Pradhan, Dy. Registrar of Companies. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT 20 02.2013 1. Company Petition No. 275 of 2011 is by Phenil Sugars Pvt. Ltd (PSPL...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »