Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 33 of about 438 results (0.041 seconds)Jai Prakash and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 273 of 2008 Reserved on: April 30, 2014 Decision on: May 12, 2014 JAI PRAKASH & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajat Bali, Ms. Smriti Sinha and Ms. Vasundhara Nagrath, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Isha Khanna, APP. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT1205.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10 th March 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), New Delhi, convicting the Appellants of offences under Section 147 read with 149 Indian Penal Code (IPC), 308 read with 149 IPC, 325 read with 149 IPC and 427 read with 149 IPC and the order on sentence dated 12 th March 2008 whereby, for the offence under Section 147 read with 149 IPC, each of the Appellants were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment (RI) with fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for 2 months; for the offence under Section 308 read ...
Tag this Judgment!Lalita Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: May 12, 2014 + CRL.A. 813/2000 LALITA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Vinay Arora, Advocates Versus The State Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Sub-Inspector Kuldeep Singh, Police Station Model Town, Delhi. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J1 By this appeal filed under section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned judgment dated 11th December 2000 and order on sentence dated 12th December 2000 passed by the Ld. ASJ whereby the Appellant Lalita is convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, together with payment of fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishab...
Tag this Judgment!Mehboob Khan @ Babu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: May 12, 2014 + CRL.A. 455/1998 MEHBOOB KHAN @ BABU ..... Appellant Through Mr. Mukesh Kalia & Ms. Sumita Kapil, Advocates versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J1 Challenge in the present appeal is to the impugned judgment dated 18.07.1998 and order on sentence dated 23.07.1998 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge had convicted the appellant for committing an offence punishable under Sections 302/324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced him to imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- under section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, and so far as the offence under Section 324 IPC is concerned, the appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous i...
Tag this Judgment!Kanta Prasad Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :06.05.2014 Judgment delivered on :12.05.2014. CRL.A. 477/2003 KANTA PRASAD ..... Appellant Through Appellant with his counsel Mr. R.P. Luthra, Adv. versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through + Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP CRL.A. 33/2004 JAI PARKASH @ GUDDU Through ..... Appellant Appellant with his counsel Mr. R.P. Luthra, Adv. versus THE STATE OF NCT DELHI Through ..... Respondent Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 There were six persons who were charge-sheeted in the present FIR. There are two appellants before this Court. Jai Parkash @ Guddu and Kanta Prasad. They had both been convicted under Section 363 and 366 read with Section 120 B of the IPC and each of them had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine to under RI for 2 years for each of the offences under Section 366 & Section 120-B of the I...
Tag this Judgment!Surender Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India, Through Its Defence Secretary ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Ashok Kumar, Member (A) The OA has been filed against the alleged unjust and unfair action of the respondents whereby Respondent No.3 has offered an appointment without following due process of recruitment to one Shri Anil Kumar Berwal to the post of Assistant Manager of CAMERO URC (Extension), ignoring the service and experience of the applicant who had been working in CAMERO AF CSD Canteen as Assistant Manager from 12.4.2004 to 27.2.2009. 2. Following reliefs have been sought in this OA:- To quash and set aside the proceedings which is going on to appoint Sh. Anil Kumar Berwal, JWO, as Assistant Manager CAMERO AF CANTEEN, Subroto Park, New Delhi, as the same are illegal, unjust and against the rules framed vide letter No.96029/Q/DDGCS dated 28th April, 2003. To allow the applicant to participate in the process of recruitment for the post of Assistant Manager, CAMERO AF CANTEEN, Subroto Park, New Delhi, keeping in view the experience, qualifications of the applicant over the person Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Gaurav Singh and Others Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicants of this O.A. are directly recruited Income Tax Inspectors of Delhi Region. According to them, they had all applied for the post of Income Tax Inspector in response to an advertisement dated 23.07.2005 issued by Staff Selection Commission (SSC). The preliminary examination was held on 13.11.2005 followed by the main examination in the year 2006. Subsequently, interviews were held in 2007. All the applicants qualified in the said examination and the final result was declared by the SSC in 2008 after which their dossiers were forwarded, the character and antecedents of the applicants were verified and they were also asked to undergo medical examination. Finally, they joined their posts on different dates in the year 2008-09. 2. Prior to their joining, Gujarat High Court in the case of UOI and Ors. Vs. N.R. Parmar and Ors. (Special Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2004) had delivered a judgment on 17.08.2004 in which it was held that the seniority of dire...
Tag this Judgment!Millennium Express Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Cust ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :12. 05.2014 + W.P.(C) 2595/2014, C.M. No.5384/2014 & 5385/2014 MILLENNIUM EXPRESS CARGO PVT. LTD. ..Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Kapur, Advocate. Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT & GENERAL) ..Respondents Through: Ms. Sonia Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Rattan Deep, Advocate, for Resp. No.1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. In these writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a Customs House Agent (the petitioner), challenges the action of the respondent, the inquiry officer under Regulation 22 of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR) in respect of a show cause notice dated 30-1-2014 issued by the Commissioner of Customs seeking to revoke the petitioners Customs House Agent (CHA) license. The petitioners are W.P.(C) 2595/2014 Page 1 aggrieved by the respondents...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay, Raipur (C.G.) Vs. Union of India Through Secret ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A): 1. The applicant has filed the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 assailing the order of the respondent no.3 dated 09.04.2008 (Annexure P-1) considering the period of absence of the applicant as his deemed resignation. 2. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):- That the Honble Tribunal may be kindly pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. That this Honble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 09.04.2008 passed by the respondent no.3 (Annexure P/11). That this Honble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent reinstate the petitioner into his services with all consequential benefits. That the Honble Court may be pleased to grant any other relief which the Honble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. The case of the applicant, in very brief, is that he i...
Tag this Judgment!R. Shyamala Joint Director Tt-ii, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, N ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, Member (J) MA No. 3279/2013 This Miscellaneous Application has been filed in RA No.208/2013 seeking stay of the order dated 11.10.2013 passed in OA No. 2145/2009. MA No. 3280/2013 2. This MA has been filed for granting oral hearing in the RA No.208/2013. MA No. 3281/2013 3. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Miscellaneous Applicants for impleadment of them as Respondents in OA No. 2145/2009. MA No. 3282/2013 in R.A. No.208/2013 4. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed in RA No.208/2013 seeking direction to summon official records pertaining to the subject matter. MA No.1224/2014 in RA No.208/2013 5. This MA has been filed seeking an order to stay the operation of the order of this Tribunal dated 11.10.2013 pass in OA No.2145/2009 till the disposal of the Review Application. RA No.208/2013 in OA No. 2145/2009 6. This Review Application bearing No.208/2013 has been filed by the Applicants seeking review of the order of this Tribunal dated 11....
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Ku. Agarwal, New Delhi and Another Vs. Ministry of Railways Th ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
P.K. Basu, Member (A). 1. Since both OA No.4366/2013 and OA No.270/2014 raise the same issue, they are being disposed off by this common order. 2. The applicants belong to Indian Railways Service of Engineers (IRSE) of 1982 batch. The railway prepares a shortlist of officers of different categories i.e. IRSE, IRTS, IRSME etc. every year through which shortlisted officers are posted as Divisional Railway Managers (DRM) in the railways. For the year 2012-13, the applicants were included in one such shortlist under the IRSE category and were placed at serial number 3, 5 and 6. Similarly, there were other shortlisted candidates from other streams. This shortlist was finalized on 26.03.2013. The applicants have filed this OA seeking the relief that the respondents be directed to provide the details of guidelines adopted for formation of DRM panel and also to keep the DRM shortlist of 2012-13 in continuation for a minimum duration of one year from the date of formation of the said panel with...
Tag this Judgment!