Delhi Court August 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.
Vimal Singh Chaudhary Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Vimal Singh Chaudhary for quashing of FIR No. 187/2010 dated 06.06.2010, under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC registered at Police Station Keshav Puram on the basis of the compromise deed executed between the petitioner and respondent nos.2 and 3, namely, Smt. Kanta Devi and Sh. Sumit on 04.01.2016. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent nos. 2 and 3, present in the Court have been identified to be the victims in the FIR in question by their counsel. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 05.06.2010, the petitioner was going from his residence to his office at Ashok Vihar from his motorcycle bearing Registration no. DL-4SAJ-2766 and the deceased, namely, Gaurav was also going about 20 metres ahead of the petitioner and when he reached near pillar no. 247 of Keshav Puram Metro Station, the petitioner who was coming fr...
Pearey Lal (Deceased) Now Represented By His L.Rs and Others Vs. Mahan ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) RSA No.345/2014 1. This Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is in fact only in the nature of cross objections by the respondents/defendants in RSA No.92/2013 for sustaining the judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff, and whose legal heirs are now the appellants in RSA No.92/2013. Accordingly, this second appeal is disposed of by considering the present appeal as arguments for sustaining the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court which are challenged in RSA No. 92/2013. This RSA is therefore disposed of as not pressed subject to the aforesaid observations. RSA No.92/2013 2. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit challenging the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 31.1.2012 and the First Appellate Court dated 1....
Yogesh Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
S.P. Garg, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Yogesh to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 27.08.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.43/2010 arising out of FIR No.68/2012 PS New Ashok Nagar by which he was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/377 IPC. By an order dated 03.09.2013, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs.2,000/- under Section 376 IPC and RI for five years with fine Rs.1,000/- under Section 377 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that for about two years prior to 27.02.2012 at House No.B-698, New Ashok Nagar, the appellant, Victim X s step father (assumed name) committed rape and carnal intercourse upon her. Police machinery came into motion on getting information vide DD No.36A (Ex.PW-11/A) on 27.02.2012 at 2113 hours to the effect that an individual was being b...
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Others Vs. Union ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
G. Rohini, C.J. 1. Though based on different set of facts, the controversy in all the petitions centers on common issues relating to the exercise of legislative power and executive control in the administration of National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD). 2. The parties to the writ petitions and the orders impugned have been set out in the following Table so as to get a glimpse of the controversy involved in each writ petition. Sl.No.Writ PetitionPartiesImpugned order/action1.W.P.(C) No.5888/2015GNCTD vs. UOINotifications dated 21.05.2015 and 23.07.2014 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs empowering the Lt. Governor to exercise the powers in respect of matters connected with 'Services' and directing the ACB Police Station not to take cognizance of offences against officials of Central Government.2.W.P.(C) No.7887/2015Rajender Prashad vs. GNCTD and Ors.Notification dated 11.08.2015 issued by the Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1...
Dalbir and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The writ petitioners of the above captioned petitions except Dharmender Kumar the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.8092/2015 have admittedly undergone surgical correction of eye sight by a process commonly known as Lasik surgery. Post surgery the distal and near vision is as per the prescribed standards without using any external aid i.e. specs. All of them have been denied employment on the ground that the medical standards prescribed require the distal and near vision to be as per the prescribed standard sans any correction surgery. The writ petitioners of all writ petitions were detected with either distal or near vision problem when they were medically examined and each undertook a Lasik surgery to correct the medical infirmity detected in them. Dharmender Kumar the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.8092/2015 disputes that he has undergone Lasik surgery and the dispute in said writ petition is whether his corrective eye vision is on account of Lasik surgery. 2. The wr...
Praveen Kumar and Others Vs. The State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Parveen Kumar, Smt. Sheela and Ms. Bhawna for quashing of FIR No.296/2014 dated 09.05.2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Geeta Colony on the basis of the mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkadooma Courts, Delhi settlement arrived at between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, namely, Ms. Leena 13.11.2014. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by SI Jagdeep Malik. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage was solemnized between petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 on 21.11.2008 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The in-laws of the complainant would torture her for dowry. On 30.09.2010, the complainant gave birth to a girl child. It is alleged ...
Nitin Batra and Another Vs. The State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Nitin Batra and Smt. Shanti for quashing of FIR No.206/2013 dated 25.04.2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar on the basis of the counseling report of the Counseling Cell, (West) Delhi settlement arrived at between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, namely, Ms. Bhawna Kumari 01.05.2015. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by SI Umesh Yadav. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage was solemnized between petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 on 27.08.2006 and two sons were born out of the said wedlock. The inlaws of the complainant would torture her for dowry and about ten days before lodging of the FIR in question they kicked her out of the house sayi...
Verma Roadways Vs. Goverment of NCT Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. The Petitioner, a partnership firm, carries on the business of transportation goods of dealers registered under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 ( DVAT Act ) as well as registered dealers of other States. The Petitioner,whose registered office appears to be in Kanpur Uttar Pradesh, has one of its godowns at Gali No. 8, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi - 110042. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that at around 12 midnight on 2nd /3rd July 2016, the Assistant Commissioner ( AC )/Value Added Tax Officer( VATO ) Ward-208 along with other officers visited the abovesaid godown/premises of the Petitioner in Swaroop Nagar and finding that the premises was locked, sealed the premises. The Petitioner states that on 8th July 2016, it moved an application before the AC for de-sealing the premises, pointing out that the Petitioner is a transporter and not a dealer. The Petitioner stated that the goods lying at its premises are value added tax ( VAT ) paid goods and traceable to bona fide...
G.B. Shah Vs. UOI and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
Pratibha Rani, J. 1. Mr.Aly Sidk, a resident of Cairo, Egypt was travelling on May 08, 2004 by flight No. 9W-331 bound for Delhi from Mumbai at 09:10 hrs. During screening of his baggage a suspected object like cartridge was noticed by SI/Exe. S.P.Verma and after confirming his doubt by showing the image on X-Ray Screen to fellow officials, the concerned passenger was informed. The baggage was opened and the live cartridge recovered from a pouch containing coins was removed by SI/Exe. S.P. Verma who was on duty to screen the baggages. Senior officer Inspector/Exe. G.B. Shah i.e. the petitioner was informed about the incident and the passenger along with the objectionable item recovered from the baggage was handed over to him. As the objectionable object had already been taken out, the baggage was cleared. SI/Exe. S.P.Verma continued performing his duty of screening the baggages. 2. What happened thereafter would have remained unnoticed but for the communication sent by the passenger vi...
Yu Televentures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. Notice. Ms. Saroj Bidawat accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1 and Mr. Deepak Anand for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. This is another instance of open defiance of the law and the judgments of the Courts by a statutory authority vested with both the power and the responsibility to comply with the mandate of the governing statute. 3. The subject matter of the writ petition is a refund claim by the Petitioner for refund of excess additional customs duty paid under Section 3 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act') read with Serial Number 263A and condition no. 16 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17th March 2012 (as amended). 4. The Petitioner company sells, inter alia, electronic products such as mobile phones etc. As part of its business activities, the Petitioner imported mobile handsets including cellular phones. 10 Bills of Entry (B/Es) were filed by it in January 2015 - February 2015. On these B/Es, the Petitioner paid additional customs duty (commonly kn...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »