Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Ajay Sharma Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2014
R-11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :15.5.2014 Judgment delivered on :21.05.2014. CRL.A. 637/2001 AJAY SHARMA ..... Appellant Through Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr.Advocate with Mr.M.L.Yadav and Mr. M.Shamikh, Advocates. versus STATE OF DELHI Through ..... Respondent Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP. Mr.Kamran Malik, Advocate for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 24.08.2001 and 25.08.2001 respectively wherein the appellant had been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and had been sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,0000/-. 2 The case of the prosecution was built up in the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-5) namely V whose allegation was that on the intervening night of 5/6.7.1997 at about 11.00 p.m. when she was returning home after watching TV in the house of her neighbor Suresh Pal she was called ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Through Ministry of Railway Vs. Kalimata Ispat India (P ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % FAO1792012 21st May, 2014 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF RAILWAY ......Appellant Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh and Ms. Sampa Sengupta Ray, Advocates. VERSUS KALIMATA ISPAT INDIA (P) LTD. Through: ...... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) Review Application No.255/2014 & C.M.No.8930/2014 (condonation of delay) 1. On 20.5.2014, the following order was passed:1. Counsel for the review petitioner is not well. At request, adjourned to 21st May, 2014 making it clear that no adjournment shall be granted on the next date.2. I may prima facie state that the review application is not maintainable because in one application, there cannot be two reliefs which are contradictory to each other i.e for treating the judgment as an exparte judgment and for setting aside the same on the ground that it is an exparte judgment and the second relief that the judgment should be tak...
Tag this Judgment!Nawab Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.318/2012 21st May, 2014 % NAWAB SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Monika, proxy counsel for Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate Versus UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed by the appellant/ claimant under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 23.9.2011 which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant.2. The case of the appellant was that he on 21.8.2008 at about 10 p.m. was travelling on train No.7 SD from Shahdra to Gotra Halt, Khekra, Baghpat, U.P after purchasing a ticket. A ticket was stated to be purchased because the validity of appellants Monthly Season Ticket from Gotra Halt to Shivaji Bridge, Delhi had earlier expired on 18.8.2008. It was further pleaded that on account of the heavy rush in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Anwar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2014
$~R-98 to 99 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of judgment:21. 5.2014 + CRL.A. 384/2006 ANWAR ..... Appellant Through Mr.Zafar Sadique, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through + Mr.Fizani Hussain, APP. CRL.A. 599/2006 MOHD. ALAM ..... Appellant Through Mr.Zafar Sadique, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Fizani Hussain, APP. INDERMEET KAUR, J (oral) 1 There are two appellants before this Court Anwar and Mohd. Alam. They are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 27.3.2006 and 30.3.2006 respectively; each of them had been convicted under Section 392/34 of the IPC and had been sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 1 month. 2 Nominal rolls of the appellants have been requisitioned. It reflects that as on the date when appellant Anwar had been enlarged on bail he had suffered incarceration of 2 years and 2 months. Mohd. Alam had suffered incarceration of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax-vi Vs. Worldwide Township Projects Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:21. 05.2014 ITA2322014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant versus WORLDWIDE TOWNSHIP PROJECTS LTD ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Rohit Madan, Mr P. Roy Choudhary and Mr Akash Vajpai. For the Respondent: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant impugns the order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), whereby the ITAT had held that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271D of the Act was unsustainable, as it was passed beyond the period of six months as prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act.2. The learned counsel for the Revenue contends that the ITAT erred in holding that Section 275(1)(c) of th...
Tag this Judgment!Zamrudpur Welfar Association Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision : May 21, 2014 + W.P.(C) 3383/2013 ZAMRUDPUR WELFARE ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Sanjeev Anand, Advocate with Mr.Abhas Kuma, Mr.Arush Khanna and Mr.Subham Tripathi, Advocates versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for R-1, R-3, R-4 and R-5 Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for R-2 Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Kamal Gupta, Advocate for R-6 and R-7 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petitioner, an association of residents and traders in Zamrudpur prays that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to ensure proper circulation of traffic in the Zamrudpur Community Centre area as per the roads shown in Annexure P-6 and P-7 annexed to the writ petition and to quash a decision dated December 08, 2008 passed by the Screening Committee of the Delhi Develo...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Prakash @ Ajay Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % +1. Date of Decision: May 21, 2014 CRL.A. 159/2000 JAI PRAKASH @ AJAY ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Charu Verma, Amicus Curiae. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for State. AND +2. CRL.A. 414/2000 OM PARKASH @ PONTY ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Charu Verma, Amicus Curiae. Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.1. By this common judgment, Crl.A.159/2000 filed by appellant Jai Prakash @ Ajay and Crl.A.414/2000 filed by appellant Om Parkash @ Ponty are being decided. In the aforesaid two appeals, the appellants-Jai Prakash @ Ajay and Om Parkash @ Ponty Singh have challenged the judgment dated 25th February, 2000 passed in Sessions Case no.57/98 by the ld.ASJ, Delhi whereby the appellants along with one co-accused person namely Sanjay have been convicted under Section 392/34 IPC and the order of sentence dated 26th February, 2000 where...
Tag this Judgment!Harvinder Singh Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:02. d April, 2014 Date of Decision:21st May, 2014 % + CRL.M.C. 1870/2013 HARVINDER SNGH Through : ..... Petitioner Mr. D.S.Kohli, Adv. versus STATE & ANR. Through : ..... Respondents Mr. Praveen Bhati, APP for State. Ms. Chaitali Jain and Ms. Gousia Shah, Advs. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH JUDGMENT1 By this application under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of complaint case No.818/2011 titled as Vikas Grover vs. A.J.S. Builders Ltd. & Ors. for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent No.2/complainant herein filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the grounds, inter alia, that accused Nos.2 to 10 along with one Mr.Prabhjot Singh (since expired), for and on behalf of respondent No.1, approached the complainant a...
Tag this Judgment!Moonish Ahmed Vs. Halima
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO1122013 & CM No.3571/2013 (stay) 21st May, 2014 % MOONISH AHMED Through: ......Appellant Dr. M.Y.Khan, Adv. VERSUS HALIMA Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Arvind Kumar, 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. Arguments in this case were concluded on 19.5.2014 when counsel for the appellant sought time to take instructions if the matter can be settled. Counsel for the appellant states that appellant is willing only to pay the compensation amount and not the interest under Section 4-A of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 as directed in the impugned judgment. The case was adjourned because if the impugned judgment is sustained, appellant will also in addition to the total amount as directed by the impugned judgment may have to pay 50% penalty amount in view of Section 4-A. Since the appellant is not agreeable to pay the total amount under the impugned judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!Trimex International Fze, Dubai Vs. Jayswals Neco Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: May 21, 2014 + O.M.P. 348/2008 TRIMEX INTERNATIONAL FZE, DUBAI ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Devadatt S. Kamat, Ms.Saniya Hussain and Ms.Ekta Mehta, Advs. versus JAYSWALS NECO LTD Through ..... Respondent Mr.Girish Chandra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By way of present petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the petitioner has assailed award dated 14th March, 2008 passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrator praying for setting aside of the arbitral award as per the grounds stated in the petition.2. Brief facts of the case are as under :(i) The petitioner is a company registered and based in Dubai and is mainly in the business of trading in minerals. The respondent is an end user of metallurgical coke and procures/imports the coke from different sources in the world. The respondent desired the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »