Delhi Court January 2015 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.
Ram Kumar @ Rajesh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2015
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:5. h January, 2015 +CRL.A. 200/2011 RAM KUMAR @ RAJESH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Jasbir Kaur, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State along with ASI Pradeep Kumar, PS Aman Vihar. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence of the appellant dated 12th November 2010 and 15th November 2010 respectively whereby the appellant was convicted for offences under Section 304B/498A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC) and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten (10) years for offence u/s 304B IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for three (3) years and fine of Rs 10,000 in default of which to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 months for offence u/s 498A IPC. Benefit u/s 428 Cr.P.C was also given to the appellant.2. The gravamen of the pr...
Ram Karan Vs. Uoi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: December 08, 2014 Pronounced on: January 05, 2015 + RSA662013 RAM KARAN Through: .....Appellant Mr.Puneet Verma, Advocate Through: ..... Respondents Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT Appellants suit for declaration and mandatory injunction qua his dismissal from service stood decreed by trial court but the first appellate court vide impugned judgment has reversed the trial courts judgment and has dismissed appellants suit while holding that principles of natural justice have been complied with. Factual narration finds mention in the impugned judgment and it needs no reproduction. Suffice it would be to note that appellant was a constable in Central Reserve Police Force and on 12 th April, 1985, he was detained at E-Coy Quarter Guard at Mehrauli, Delhi and on checking by DSP Joginder Singh, appellant was found absent from duty. On account of the aforesaid absence from the duty...
Sh.Y.K.Gupta Vs. Allahabad Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.44/2015 5th January, 2015 % SH.Y.K.GUPTA Through: ......Petitioner Ms.Rekha Aggarwal, Advocate. VERSUS ALLAHABAD BANK Through: ...... Respondent Mr.Rajesh Kumar with Mr.Gaurav Kumar Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, an employee of the respondent bank, impugning the orders passed by the departmental authorities; the disciplinary authority dated 29.9.2012 and the appellate authority dated 18.7.2014; by which the petitioner was imposed the penalty of reduction to a lower grade of MMG Scale-II and fixing the basic pay at Rs.22,500/-. 2. As per the articles of charges/charge-sheet, the petitioner was confronted with a total number of 24 charges with respect to different accounts of taking wrong valuation/incorrect valuation of the property for grant of loa...
Shobha Shrestha Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:05. 01.2015 + WP(C) 2907/2013 SHOBHA SHRESTHA ..... Petitioner Versus GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Mr Atishi Dipankar, Advocate For the Respondents: Ms Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel with Ms Sana Ansari, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER,J1 This is a writ petition directed against order dated 11.02.2013 passed by respondent no.3. The petitioner had approached this court in the previous round, at which stage her grievance was that no adjudication had taken place in respect of the document in issue, i.e., the conveyance deed qua which a substantial sum towards stamp duty, amounting to Rs. 1,43,57,680/-, had been paid; albeit under protest. 1.1 The petitioner thus had sought an adjudication under Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short the Act). This writ petition was numbered as WP(C...
Ram Kumar @ Rajesh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2015
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:5. h January, 2015 +CRL.A. 200/2011 RAM KUMAR @ RAJESH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Jasbir Kaur, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State along with ASI Pradeep Kumar, PS Aman Vihar. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence of the appellant dated 12th November 2010 and 15th November 2010 respectively whereby the appellant was convicted for offences under Section 304B/498A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC) and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten (10) years for offence u/s 304B IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for three (3) years and fine of Rs 10,000 in default of which to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 months for offence u/s 498A IPC. Benefit u/s 428 Cr.P.C was also given to the appellant.2. The gravamen of the pr...
Raju Chaudhary Vs. The Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2015
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: January 05, 2015 + W.P.(C) 45/2015 RAJU CHAUDHARY Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.P.N.Singh, Advocate with petitioner in person versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Vikas Mahajan, Advocate with Mr.Shyam Sunder, Advocate and Mr.B.K.Rout, Pairvi Officer, CRPF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(ORAL) CM No.76/2015 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. WP(C) 45/2015 1. Learned counsel for the respondents who appears on advance copy being served has produced the service record of the writ petitioner. The same has been perused by us.2. The petitioner was enrolled, on probation, as a Constable (GD) in CRPF. Exercising power under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, the petitioner has been discharged from service. The order in question is non-stigmatic. It does not contain any reasons which could be said to be casti...
M/S Jawahar Chit (P) Ltd. Vs. Ritika Chaudhary
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2015
$-17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:05. 01.2015 % CRL.L.P. 6/2015 & CRL MA712015 M/S JAWAHAR CHIT (P) LTD Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Chauhan, Advocate versus RITIKA CHAUDHARY ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The applicant has moved this application under Section 378(4) Cr PC for grant of leave/permission to file criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.09.2014 passed by Sh. Anurag Thakur, MM, Dwarka Court in Case No.392/2012 (Old CC No.23524/11 dated 08.03.2011 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act). By the impugned order, the complaint preferred by the applicant has been rejected and the respondent/accused was acquitted.2. The case of the complainant was that it is a Chit Fund company and that the accused was a member of the chit bearing No.JCH VI having total value of 2 lacs, of 25 instalments. It was alleged that the accused had only paid 9 instalments a...
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Himanshu Saxena
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2015
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:05. h January, 2015 + MAC. APP. No.1059/2013 UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate & Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate Versus HIMANSHU SAXENA Through: .....Respondent Mr. R.K. Bachchan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appellant Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) lays challenge to the judgment dated 03.08.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of Rs.16,73,748/- was granted to Respondent no.1 Himanshu Saxena (adopted son) for the death of his father Deepak Narayan Saxena in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 03.10.2009.2. There is twin challenge to the judgment. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that there was no negligence on the part of the Appellants driver or in any case, it was composite negligence on the part...
Sh.Y.K.Gupta Vs. Allahabad Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.44/2015 5th January, 2015 % SH.Y.K.GUPTA Through: ......Petitioner Ms.Rekha Aggarwal, Advocate. VERSUS ALLAHABAD BANK Through: ...... Respondent Mr.Rajesh Kumar with Mr.Gaurav Kumar Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, an employee of the respondent bank, impugning the orders passed by the departmental authorities; the disciplinary authority dated 29.9.2012 and the appellate authority dated 18.7.2014; by which the petitioner was imposed the penalty of reduction to a lower grade of MMG Scale-II and fixing the basic pay at Rs.22,500/-. 2. As per the articles of charges/charge-sheet, the petitioner was confronted with a total number of 24 charges with respect to different accounts of taking wrong valuation/incorrect valuation of the property for grant of loa...
Commissioner of Income Tax Del-Iii Vs. Unipatch Rubber Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2015
$~R-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :05. 01.2015 + ITA382000 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL-III Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Balbir Singh, Sr.Standing Counsel versus UNIPATCH RUBBER LTD. Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Prakash Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The question of law framed in this case by order dated 22.09.2000 is as follows:Whether assessee is entitled to deduction/benefit under Section 80-I on the gross income without excluding/reducing deduction allowed under Section 80-HH?.2. The facts necessary for deciding this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are that for the period 01-01-1988 to 31-03-1989, relevant for the assessment year 1989-90, the return of income was filed by the respondent-assessee declaring Rs.53,93,390/- as income. The assessee manufactured and sold rubber patches for tyre, tubes, uniseals etc. By order dated 13...
- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »