Delhi Court November 2015 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2015 Page 7 of about 129 results (0.022 seconds)Nanak Chand Vs. The State
Court: Delhi
Oral: 1. Nanak Chand was convicted by the learned Trial court in connection with FIR No.84/1995 for the offences under Sections 279/304-A of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months for the offence under Section 279 IPC and RI for 1 years for offence under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently vide judgment and order dated 11.03.2005. 2. Nanak Chand preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence before the Court of the learned District Judge, New Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No.42/2005. The Appellate Court, while maintaining the conviction under both the counts, modified the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 304-A IPC to 1 year from 1 years. The sentence imposed for offence under section 279 of the IPC was not interfered with. 3. Hence, the revision petition. 4. An accident had taken place on 24.02.1995 wherein one Uma Shankar was hit by a half truck bearing registration no.HR-26-4302 which...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax -Delhi -I Vs. Abhinandan Investment Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'Act') impugning an order dated 12th January, 2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'ITAT') in ITA No. 5425(Del)/94. The said appeal (ITA 5425(Del)/94) was preferred by the Assessee against an order dated 18th July, 1994 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter 'CIT(A)'] whereby the Assessee's appeal against an assessment order dated 22nd April, 1993, passed by the Assessing Officer (hereafter 'AO') in respect of Assessment Year 1992-93, was rejected. 2. The controversy involved in the present case relates to a loss of Rs. 1,68,59,360/- claimed by the Assessee in respect of renunciation of rights to subscribe to partly convertible debentures (hereafter 'PCD') of M/s Jindal Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (hereafter 'JISCO'). The Assessee was entitled to these rights by virtue of holding shares of JISCO which were acquired by the Assessee at...
Tag this Judgment!Dhani Ram and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
R.K. Gauba, J. 1. The appellants challenge, through the appeal at hand, their conviction and order on sentence on the charge for offences of cruelty meted out to, and dowry death of, Har Pyari (wife of the first appellant) in the matrimonial home on 11.03.1995, primarily on the basis of findings returned accepting the testimony of the father and brother of the victim. 2. Har Pyari, daughter of Ramji Lal (PW-4) was married to Dhani Ram (the first appellant) on 26.05.1991. On 11.03.1995, she received burn injuries in her matrimonial home in Kamal Vihar, Kamalpur, Burari, Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Timarpur ( the police station ?), sometime around 3:30 PM. She was brought to Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital ( the hospital ?) at 5:00 PM by an official of Police Control Room (PCR). She died at 7:05 PM on the same day due to burn injuries, stated to be 100% all over the body. On the basis of statement (Ex.PW-4/B) of her father (PW-4), given on 24.04.1995, before Mr.Vijay Kum...
Tag this Judgment!Badari Mehto Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 05.7.2013 and 06.7.2013 respectively wherein the appellant stood convicted under Section 376 of the IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-,in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days. Benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. has been granted to the appellant. 2. Nominal roll of the appellant has been requisitioned. As on date the appellant has undergone 5 years of incarceration which includes the remissions earned by him. His jail conduct has been satisfactory. 3. The version of the prosecution was disclosed in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which had formed the basis of the FIR and which was to the effect that at about 4.00 p.m. in the afternoon on 26.4.2011 while she was playing outside her house the accused who was known to her had taken her to a poultry farm where, in a room he had committed rap...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Tej Bhan Jaman Das Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Oral: 1. The plaintiff partnership firm/M/s Tej Bhan Jaman Das has filed this suit against the defendant/Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for a money decree for a sum of Rs.44,19,368/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. Plaintiff who is a dealer of the petroleum products supplied by the defendant claims that defendant has supplied the petroleum products at a higher rate by wrongly placing the plaintiff in category 1/A instead of category 2/B for which latter category a lower rate has to be charged for the petroleum products. Plaintiff therefore not only seeks a money decree for recovery of the excess amount which as per the plaintiff has been received by the defendant from the plaintiff on account of higher charges wrongly paid for category 1/A, but the plaintiff also prays for a declaration and injunction that the plaintiff be held to fall in category 2/B and the defendant be restrained from claiming higher rate of charges in future from the plaintiff by putting the plaintiff in category...
Tag this Judgment!Bindu Sehgal Vs. UOI and Others
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The writ petitioner seeks directions for appropriate pay fixation and release of Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits in terms of the scheme formulated by the Central Government in that regard, on 09.08.1999. 2. The undisputed facts are that in response to an advertisement issued by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) seeking applications from eligible candidates for direct recruitment to the post of Hindi Officer in the Border Road Development Board, the Ministry of Transport, the Petitioner applied. She was selected and appointed to the said post in September, 1986, and confirmed in the post on 23.10.1988. Her grievance is that those similarly situated and possessing qualifications similar to what are possessed by her but who were recruited through the UPSC in 1986 and allocated to Central Secretariat Official Language Service were promoted as Senior Hindi Officers/Varisth Hindi Adhikharis after about 8 years. Some of them were later promoted to th...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Tarun Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. In this petition filed by way of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner seeks a declaration that Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and Rule 12(3) of the Delhi Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2009 which prescribe the procedure to be followed for determination of age of a juvenile in conflict with law, are ultra vires and unconstitutional being violative of the Constitution of India. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 3. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short Act ˜) has been enacted consolidating and amending the law relating to juveniles in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by providing proper care, protection and treatment by catering to their development needs and by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of matters in the best interest of children and for their ulti...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Oral: Crl.M.A. No. 16697/2015 1. Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. CRL.REV.P. 739/2015 1. Madan Singh was charged and convicted for the offence under Section 279/304A of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months under Section 279 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 304A of the IPC and a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of which, a further simple imprisonment for a month, by the learned Trial Court namely Chief Metropolitan Magistrate: Central District, Tis Hazari in connection with FIR No.96/01 (P.S. DBG Road). 2. In the appeal preferred by Madan Singh namely Criminal Appeal No. 44/2015, the Additional Sessions Judge (Central): Delhi affirmed the conviction and sentences imposed upon him. 3. Hence, the present revision petition. 4. The petitioner is alleged to have been driving a truck, bearing registration No.RJ-04-G-0788, on a public way in a rash an...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Kumar Sood and Another Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation ...
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The NTPC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Conduct Rules') deal with disciplinary matters concerning employees of NTPC. Rules 23, 32 and 33 of Conduct Rules and Schedule of Delegation of Powers in respect of Disciplinary Matters appended thereto are relevant for adjudication of the present appeals, the relevant portion(s) whereof read as under:- Rule 23 Penalties The following penalties may be imposed on an employee as hereinafter provided, for misconduct committed by him or for any other good and sufficient reasons. Minor Penalties: (a) Censure; (b) withholding of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect; (c) withholding of promotion; (d) recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him, of the whole or any part of any pecuniary loss, caused to the Company by negligence of breach of orders. Major Penalties (e) reduction to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in a time scale; (f) removal from...
Tag this Judgment!Parsuram Pandey and Others Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Suresh Kait, J. 1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. appellants challenged the judgment dated 10.08.2001, whereby they were held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 307/323/34 IPC. 2. Further challenged the order on sentence dated 13.08.2001, whereby the appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of fine, they were further directed to undergo SI for a period of two months. The appellants were further sentenced to undergo RI for six months for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34 IPC with fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of fine, they were further directed to undergo SI for a period of one month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The facts of the present case in brief are that on 29.04.1997 one Rajkumar Pandey (hereinafter referred to as complainant) lodged a report with the Police Station “ Ambedkar...
Tag this Judgment!