Delhi Court May 2016 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.
Beerbali Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2016
1. Not to disclose the identity of the victim, I shall be referring to her as: Sacred . Accompanied by her mother Shakuntla PW-9, and W/Ct.Rekha PW-6, Sacred was brought to the casualty of Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial Hospital at 4.45 P.M. on July 29, 2012 where she was examined by Dr.Neha Bansal who wrote on the MLC Ex.PW-1/A that there was no injury on Sacred s body. She found everything normal. Nothing suggestive of a sexual assault or intercourse is recorded therein. 2. Sacred was referred for a gynaecological examination and Dr.Latika, Sr.Gynaecologist examined Sacred. On the MLC she recorded the following:- Per abdominal examination Soft, non tender Breast tanner stage 4. Local examination External genitalia healthy. Public hair tanner stage 4. Introitus gaping. Whitish mucoid discharge present Per speculum examination Mucoid discharge present. Perenial erosion present. Per vaginal examination Uterine size not made out. 3. W/Ct.Rekha was deputed to take Sacred to the hospital bec...
ITE India Private Limited Vs. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Develop ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2016
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. 1. The appellant impugns order dated 08.02.2016, whereby the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) has been dismissed. 2. By an Agreement dated 08.08.2005, the appellant was awarded an operation contract of commercial outlets at Garden of Five Senses for a period of ten years. Possession of the site was handed over to the appellant on 23.08.2005. In terms of the agreement, contract fee was payable and the appellant was entitled to sub-Contract outlets to its sub-Contractors for which an NOC was issued though, it is contended, belatedly after four years. 3. On 14.05.2010, certain disputes arose between the parties leading to various rounds of litigation. An amicable resolution was sought, however, the same could not be resolved. The appellant filed an arbitration petition No.439/2013 under Section 11 for appointment of an Arbitrator. Subsequently, the said petition was withdrawn with liberty to t...
Acj vs. Rj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2016
Vipin Sanghi, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as HMA ) has been preferred to assail the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2007 passed in HMA No.89/2006 by the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi, whereby the learned ADJ dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant/husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage against the respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty. 2. The facts as delineated in the petition are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.05.1997 at Girdi, Bihar, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the customary performance of the Gauna Ceremony on 10.12.1997, she was brought to the matrimonial home and the marriage was consummated. No issue was born out of the wedlock. 3. The appellant asserted three specific instances of insult and injury against the respondent. Firstly, the appellant asserts that shortly after the respondent s arrival...
Rajpal @ Hathi @ Sonu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2016
Oral: 1. By the present appeal the appellant challenges the impugned judgment dated 4th September, 2014 convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 365/397 IPC in FIR No.110/2013 registered at PS Kashmere Gate and the order on sentence dated 5th September, 2014 directing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. 2. DD No.10A was received in the intervening night of 9th/10th May, 2013 at 3:15 AM informing that a red Yamaha motorcycle bearing No.8881 has been taken away from House No.1827/6, Priyadarshini Colony, Yamuna Bazar. This DD was handed over to SI Hawa Singh, PW-5 who along with Constable Sonu, ...
Rahisuddin Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. In terms of the impugned judgment dated September 26, 2001 passed in Sessions Case No.63/98 the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shahdara, Delhi has held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and consequently sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life vide order on sentence dated September 27, 2001. Fine in sum of Rs. 5,000/- has also been imposed, in default of which the appellant would be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. At the outset we may note that the co-accused Shahabuddin @ Shambu was acquitted by the learned Trial Judge and the State has not preferred an appeal against the said acquittal. 3. The facts germane to the adjudication of the present appeal lie within a narrow compass and may be taken note of pithily to avoid prolixity, while eschewing unnecessary reference to the circumstances/evidence emerging qua the acquitted co-accused. 4. On the night of December 13, 1997 at around ...
Rotomac Electricals Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2016
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. The petition impugns (i) the adjudication order dated 5th April, 2010 of the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade in exercise of powers under Section 11(2) read with Section 11(4) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) (FTDR) Act, 1992 imposing penalty of Rs.3,46,30,500/- on the petitioner and its directors; (ii) order dated 5th January, 2015 of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade in exercise of powers under Section 15 of the FTDR Act dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner; and, (iii) the order dated 21st/24th August, 2015 of the Reviewing Authority and Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) in exercise of powers under Section 16 of the FTDR Act of rejecting the review application filed by the petitioner. 2. Notice of the petition was issued, though no interim relief granted. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The petitioner did not opt to file rejoinder. Counsels were heard on 2nd December, 2015 and j...
Indu Lata Rangwala Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2016
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned notice dated 25th June/6th July 2001 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16 (2), New Delhi (Respondent herein) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) seeking to reopen the assessment of the Petitioner, Ms. Indu Lata Rangwala, for the Assessment Year ( AY ) 1999-2000. A further challenge was also laid to the consequent notice dated 26th November 2001 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(2), New Delhi under Section 143(2)/142(1) of the Act requiring the Petitioner to furnish the requested details therein. 2. By an order dated 26th November 2002, the Court directed that the proceedings in terms of the abovesaid notice under Section 148 of the Act may continue before the Assessing Officer ( AO ) but no final order shall be passed during the pendency of the writ petition. 3. The Petitioner was earlier a partner of M/s. Rangwala...
Parbhati Devi and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. As per the impugned judgment dated October 31, 2001, passed in Sessions Case No.52/96, the learned Additional Sessions Judge New Delhi has held the three accused : Gulab Devi, Parbhati Devi and Hira Lal guilty for having committed an offence punishable under Section 498A/34 IPC. Accused Gulab Devi has also been held guilty for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 2. In terms of the order on sentence dated November 26, 2001, accused Parbhati Devi and Hira Lal have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 498 A IPC. Fine of Rs. 5,000/- each has also been imposed; in default of which the two would be liable to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Accused Gulab Devi has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Fine in sum of Rs. 100/- has also been imposed, in default of which the accused has ...
Shalu Nigam and Another Vs. The Regional Passport Officer and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2016
Manmohan, J 1. Petitioner No.1 by way of the present writ petition has sought reissuance of her daughter-petitioner No.2's passport without insisting upon her father's name being mentioned in the application. 2. Petitioner No.1, who appeared in person, stated that she is divorced from her husband and has raised petitioner No.2 as a single parent since her birth on 24th August, 1997. She contended that the biological father had completely abdicated his responsibilities towards petitioner No.2 since her birth. 3. Petitioner No.1 stated that the respondents insistence upon petitioner No.2 mentioning her father's name in the application violated the rights of petitioner No.2 to determine her name and identity. She pointed out that the entire record of petitioner No.2-daugther which included her educational certificates and Aadhar Card etc. did not bear the name of her father. She submitted that if the directions sought for in the present petition are not issued, the petitioner No.2-daughte...
Mohd. Anis and Another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2016
G.S. Sistani, J. Oral: 1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus thereby directing respondents to produce their minor daughter, Fareen, who has been missing since 27.12.2015. 2. As per the petition, the age of Fareen is 17 years and three months (date of birth is 10.12.1998). It has been alleged in the petition that one, Asif, who has been arrayed as respondent no.6 in this petition, had kidnapped Fareen. 3. Notice in this petition was issued on 15.3.2016, when Fareen, daughter of the petitioners, and Asif, respondent no.6, were produced in Court. We had interacted with the petitioners; their daughter, Fareen; and also with Asif, respondent no.6 in kthe Chamber. Asif and Fareen had submitted that their Nikah has been performed and they are living as husband and wife. Fareen had refused to join the company of her parents. 4. On 15.3.2016 it was also informed to the Court that this is the second oc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »