Delhi Court August 2016 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vishnu Pawar and Others Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2016
S.P. Garg, J. 1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 24.01.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.107/2010 arising out of FIR No.122/2008 PS Sarojini Nagar, the appellants - Vishnu Pawar (A-1), Manju (A-2) and Vinod Karayat (A-3), have filed the instant appeals to challenge its legality and correctness. By the said judgment, the appellants were held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 307/120B IPC. A- 1 and A-3 were further convicted for committing offence punishable under Sections 394/34 IPC. By an order dated 23.02.2013, the appellants were awarded various prison terms with fine. The substantive sentences were to operate concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that on or before 20.03.2008, the appellants hatched a criminal conspiracy to make an attempt to murder R.K.Bhatia. On 20.03.2008 at about 04.00 p.m. at West Kidwai Nagar, Type-III, Safdarjung Hospital Staff Quarters, near I-Block, pursuant to th...
Rajinder @ Lalu and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2016
R.K. Gauba, J. 1. The four appellants before us were prosecuted on the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted on 28.08.1996 by the Station House Officer (SHO) of police station Model Town (police station ) on conclusion of investigation into the first information report (FIR) No.255/1996 that had been registered on 06.06.1996. Upon the case being committed by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, they stood trial on the basis of evidence submitted with the said police report, on the charge for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the gravamen of which was that on 05.06.1996, at about 10:30 p.m., on a public road near Ambedkar Park, Lal Bagh within the jurisdiction of said police station, in furtherance of their common intention, they had committed the murder of Baiju son of Bhola (PW-4), aged about 23 years. On the consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, essentially thr...
Joginder Kaur (Gogi) and Another Vs. Prit Pal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2016
I.S. Mehta, J. 1. The appellant-wife, i.e., Smt. Joginder Kaur (Gogi), under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has preferred MAT.APP.(F.C.)No.52/2014 aggrieved from the judgment and divorce decree dated 26th February, 2014 in HMA No. 516/2011. She has also preferred MAT.APP.(FC)No.72/2014 partially challenging the order dated 26th February, 2014 in maintenance petition M No. 132/12 passed by the Family Court, Dwarka, New Delhi. Inasmuch as the two appeals rest on identical facts, the appeals have been taken together for consideration. 2. The facts giving rise to the two appeals are briefly noted. The parties before us were married in accordance with Sikh rites and customs on 22nd February, 2008. From their wedlock and cohabitation on 14th November, 2008, they were blessed with a son, i.e., Master Dilpreet Singh. 3. The respondent-husband, i.e., Shri Prit Pal Singh, filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia)and(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 9 th June, 2011 for gra...
Kavita Devi Vs. Anil Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2016
Pratibha Rani, J. (Oral) 1. The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the decree of dissolution of her marriage with the respondent/husband on the ground of cruelty. The divorce petition was filed by the respondent/husband on the allegation that the appellant/wife was living in adultery and he is not biological father of all the three children born out of the wedlock. 2. Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act provides grounds on which marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce. Relevant provisions for us for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are Section 13(1)(i) and Section 13(1)(ia) which read as under:- 13.Divorce (1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party 1(i) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or 1(ia) has, after the solemn...
Madan Lal Vs. LT. Governor and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2016
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. W.P.(C) 7316/2016 and CM No.30099/2016(stay) 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 08.08.2016 whereby the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) has directed that sale of the vend, i.e. liquor shop, be stopped immediately. 2. The petitioner is the owner of shop No.2, Khasra No.5/19/1, Main 100 ft. Road, Nathu Pura, Burari, Delhi-84. 3. It is contended that the petitioner has a licence agreement with Delhi Tourism And Transportation Development Corporation Limited (DTTDC), respondent No.3, wherein the respondent No.3 was to obtain approval/sanction of the competent authority for opening of and running the retail liquor shop in the aforesaid property. 4. It is contended that as per the licence agreement, the respondent No.3 has to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month or 12.5% of the gross profit on the sale of liquor, whichever is higher. 5. It is contended that the impugned order dated 08.08.2016 has been passed without any reason by the Assistant...
Ajeet Panwar Vs. Babita
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
Pratibha Rani, J. 1. The appellant/husband having been declined a decree for dissolution of marriage with the respondent/wife is before this Court assailing the judgment and decree dated August 01, 2011 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rohini in HMA No.777/2006 under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib). 2. Notice of the appeal was sent to the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent had put in appearance on September 26, 2012. The appeal was admitted on that date with direction to be taken up for hearing as per its turn. 3. The appeal reached for hearing on July 17, 2013 and thereafter had been taken up on October 28, 2013; August 13, 2016 and August 16, 2016. None has appeared on behalf of respondent on the above dates as well today. 4. The appellant/husband has assailed the verdict of learned Judge Family Court mainly on the following grounds:- (i) The respondent lodged a false complaint at CAW Cell, Nanakpura which was later on withdrawn by her. (ii) Concealing the above facts after l...
Kapil Kumar Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. The present application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.371/2016, under Sections 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Madhu Vihar, New Delhi,. 2. The prosecution s case is registered on the statement one Gauri. It is alleged that the complainant and her sister Mithlesh @ Manisha married in the same house and after few days of their marriage, her husband and brother-in-law started torturing them on account of dowry and started beating them. It is stated by the complainant that on 26.06.2016, her brother-in-law beat her sister and on the next morning when her sister told the whole incident to her father-in-law namely Mahesh Sharma, the father-in-law made a call to complainant s maternal uncle (mama) to interfere in the matter. At about 8 PM, the complainant s uncles namely Lakhan Lal, Kanhiya Lal, Balchand, Bhojpal, alongwith maternal aunts (mami) Kamlesh w...
Kandula Subramaniam Vs. Krishnakoli Datta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
Rani Pratibha Rani, J. 1. The appellant/husband is aggrieved by the order dated August 26, 2013 whereby he has been directed to pay Rs.23,000/- per month towardsmaintenance of the child of the parties and also Rs.1,08,000/- as 1/3rd share inthe admission charges of Rs.3,24,000/- of their child in regular school. 2. It is admitted case of the parties that they got married on April 22, 1999. They were blessed with a son on March 07, 2008. The parties are living separately since February, 2010. The appellant/husband and respondent/wife jointly owned two flats, one in Ridgewood Estate, DLF Phase IV, Gurgaon Haryana) where appellant/husband is residing and one in Iris Row, Vatika City Sohna Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) where respondent/wife along with their son is residing. The appellant/husband filed HMA Petition No.471/2014 seeking dissolution of marriage. The respondent/wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to seek maintenance of their only son who was age...
Tekla Corporation Vs. Anil Srivastava and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
I.A. 10058/2016 (joint application u/O XXIII R 3 CPC) 1. The present compromise application has been filed by the parties stating inter alia that during the pendency of the present proceedings, they have arrived at an out of court settlement. 2. The terms and conditions of the settlement have been set out in subparas (a) to (e) of para 1 of the application, whereunder the defendants have acknowledged that the plaintiff is the owner/proprietor of the intellectual property rights in various software programmes developed by it and have undertaken that they will abide by the terms and conditions of the Software Licence Agreement executed with the plaintiff. The remaining terms and conditions of the settlement have also been set out in the present application. 3. In consideration of the undertakings given by the defendants, the plaintiff has agreed to forego its claims for damages, delivery up, rendition of accounts and costs, as prayed for in para 50(b) of the plaint. 4. Counsels for the p...
Yogender Kumar @ Rinku and Another Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.06.2013 and Order on Sentence dated 03.07.2013 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge in FIR No.194/2011 whereby the appellants were sentenced to RI for ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Sections 304-B/34 IPC in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six months each. The appellants were also sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 498A/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for four months. It was also ordered by the Sessions Judge that the sentences awarded to the appellants/convicts shall run concurrently and they would be entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the period during which they had already remained in custody furing investigation/trial. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.06.2011 at about 5 am, Duty Constable Omjeet passed telephonic ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »