Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 26 of about 438 results (0.023 seconds)Pankaj Alias Praveen Vs. State
Court: Delhi
$~R-10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :08. 5.2014 Judgment delivered on :16. 05.2014 CRL.A.26/2006 Appellant PANKAJ alias PRAVEEN Through Mr.Chetan Lokur, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Varun Goswami, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 25.10.2005 and 09.11.2005 wherein the appellant Pankaj @ Praveen had been convicted under Sections 363/366 of the IPC and had been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 3 months for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC; for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC he had been sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of payment of fine to undergo RI for 6 months. 2 DD No.10A (Ex.PW-2/A) was recorded in local police station Hauz Qazi on 02.3.2005 noting that the ...
Tag this Judgment!D.T.C Vs. Bahadur Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on January 30, 2014 Judgment Delivered on May 16, 2014 + W.P.(C) 6863/2001 D.T.C Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate versus BAHADUR SINGH & ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.A.K.Bajpai, Advocate with Mr.M.F.Khan, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated August 14, 2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Complaint I.D No.1650/89, wherein the Tribunal has directed that the respondent be reinstated with continuity in service with 25% back wages.2. The brief facts are that in the month of March, 1988, the petitioner corporation dismissed a large number of its employees. The respondent No.1 herein was also dismissed for allegedly participating in an illegal strike from March 17, 1988 to March 19, 1988 and for inciting and instigating other workers to strike work. Suffice to state that the petitioner did not hol...
Tag this Judgment!Tekla Corporation and anr Vs. Survo Ghosh and anr
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:16. h May, 2014. % + CS(OS) 2414/2011 TEKLA CORPORATION & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Safia Said, Adv. Versus SURVO GHOSH & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Kaustubh Sinha, Adv. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The question, whether in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs, a defence of copyright misuse is available to the defendants, is for adjudication.2. The two plaintiffs i.e. Tekla Corporation, Finland and Tekla India Pvt. Ltd. have sued the two defendants i.e. the defendant no.2 M/s. Caliber Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and its officer defendant no.1 Mr. Survo Ghosh pleading, that the plaintiffs have a copyright in software programme known as Tekla Structures and the defendants, instead of obtaining license thereof from the plaintiffs, have unauthorizedly installed the same.3. Summons of the suit were issued and vid...
Tag this Judgment!Jagmohan @ Jagga Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : April 01, 2014 DECIDED ON : May 16, 2014 + CRL.A. 975/2011 JAGMOHAN @ JAGGA ..... Appellant Through : Ms.Rakhi Dubey with Mr.Anuj Pal, Advocates. STATE ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The appellant-Jagmohan @ Jagga questions the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 11.08.2010 in Sessions Case No.83/09 arising out of FIR No.112/09 registered at Police Station Khyala by which he was convicted under Section 367/377/307 IPC. By an order dated 27.08.2010, he was sentenced to undergo RI for six years with fine `20,000/- each under Sections 367/377 IPC; and RI for ten years with fine `50,000/- under Section 307 IPC. The sentences were to operate concurrently.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as reflected in the charge-sheet, was that on 19.05.2009 at about 10:00 pm at Gali No.1, Vishnu Garden, Delhi, the appellant kidnapped Chaman, aged 12 years, and c...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Seema and ors
Court: Delhi
$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:16th May, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 840/2013 SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.K.L.Nandwani, Advocate. Versus SMT. SEEMA & ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company has assailed the award dated 02.07.2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.11,81,512/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.2. Mr.K.L.Nandwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submits that at the time of the accident, the deceased Prem Singh was 32 years of age. Though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was Class IV employee with MCD, however, they have failed to prove his avocation and salary....
Tag this Judgment!Shishir Kumar @ Chunnu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 1379/2010 Judgment reserved on 9th September, 2013 Judgment pronounced on 16th May, 2014 % SHISHIR KUMAR @ CHUNNU ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Lal Singh Thakur, Mr.Bharat Bhushan and Mr.Vikas Vats, Advs. versus STATE Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL G.S.SISTANI, J1 Challenge in the present appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to the judgment dated 27.8.2010 and order on sentence dated 30.8.2010 passed in Sessions Case No.140/2008, arising out of FIR No.58/2004, registered under Section 364A/420/120B/34 IPC, Police Station Mahipalpur, by which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under Section 364A IPC and under Section 120B IPC. It was directed that the sentences would run concurrently. In addition thereto, the appellant was directed to pay a fine of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax (C)-iii Vs. Sh. Gopal Gupta
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:16. 05.2014 W.P.(C) 1208/2013 & CM No.2299/2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-III ... Petitioner versus SH. GOPAL GUPTA ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondent No.1 : Mr N.P. Sahni with Mr Nitin Gulati : Mr Parag Tripathi, Sr Advocate with MrVivek Kohli, Mr Shwetank Tripathi, Mr Kunal Bahri and Ms Shivambika Sinha. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition, which has been filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, impugns the order dated 21.05.2012 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is also directed against the order dated 20.11.2012 passed by the Settlement Commission. The respondent No.1 had approached the Settlement Commission by way of a settlement application in respect of assessment years 2003-2004 to 2009-2010...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sunita Rana Vs. Sh. Hitesh Kumar Dheer and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:16. h May, 2014 % + MAC.APP.863/2013 SMT. SUNITA RANA Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr. O.P.Mannie, Advocate. Versus SH. HITESH KUMAR DHEER & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.Sanjay Rawat, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) MAC.APP.434/2012 1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 16.04.2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for an amount of Rs.3,28,560/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.2. Vide the present appeal, the appellant is seeking enhancement of the compensation amount noted above.3. Mr.O.P. Mannie, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that due to the accident occurred on 10.08.2008, the appellant/injured received 47% permanent disability in relatio...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Yadav Vs. State of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (Crl.) No,905/2014 & Crl.M.A. No.7112/2014 DATE OF DECISION:16. 05.2014 VISHAL YADAV Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Sanjay Jain, Adv. with Mr.Vinay Arora, Adv. versus STATE OF DELHI & ANR. Through ..... Respondent Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Mr.Yashwardhan Tiwari, Adv. for States. Mr.P.K. Dey, Adv. with Mr.K.K. Dey, Adv. for complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) Crl.M.A. No.7112/2014 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P. (Crl.) No.905/2014 2. A status report dated 15th May, 2014 has been filed by the State which is taken on record.3. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner stands convicted for commission of offences under Section 302 read with Section 34; Sections 364 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi in SC No.78/02 arising out of FIR No.192/02, PS Ghaziabad, UP. The petitioner was thereafter sent...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vibha Singh and ors. Vs. Sh. Tulsi Lal and ors
Court: Delhi
$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:16. h May, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 456/2014 SMT. VIBHA SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr. Manish Maini, Adv. versus SH. TULSI LAL & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Adv. for R3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Notice issued to respondent No.3.2. Ld. Counsel named above accepts notice on behalf of the said respondent.3. Admit.4. With the consent of the parties, the instant appeal is taken up for final disposal.5. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 17.02.2014, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.9,59,964/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim petition till realization of the amount.6. Vide the present appeal, appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation amount as noted above.7. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that on the date ...
Tag this Judgment!