Delhi Court September 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 6 of about 94 results (0.021 seconds)Ajay Gupta Vs. State Thr. C.B.I
Court: Delhi
Vipin Sanghi, J. Crl.M.A. No. 13414/2016 1. Issue notice. Ms. Behura, SPP for CBI, accepts notice. 2. I have heard the submission of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for CBI at some length and proceed to dispose of this application. 3. The appellant has preferred this application under Sections 243/311 Cr.P.C. to seek recall of witnesses PW2-Raj Kumar, PW3-Satpal, and PW5- Inspector CBI R.V.S.Lohmor. The background in which the recall of the said witness has been sought may first be noted. 4. The allegation against the appellant was that he demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant PW3-Satpal. A trap had been laid for that purpose by the CBI. PW2 Raj Kumar was the shadow witness and PW5-Inspector RVS Lohmor was the Trap Laying Officer (TLO). As per the case of the prosecution, the appellants/accused had accepted Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant Satpal (PW3) from his right hand and put the amount in his pant pocket. However, when an alarm was raised, h...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar @ Mithu and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
R.K. Gauba, J. 1. The appellants with one another (Satish Chander @ Chandra) were sent up for trial before the court of Sessions on the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted on 13.11.1990 upon conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) No.222/1990 of police Station Dabri (the police station) for offences punishable under Sections 302/324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Upon consideration of the evidence gathered during investigation by the police, as set out in the said police report (charge sheet), the learned additional sessions judge in seisin of the sessions case (No.30/1992) framed charge against all the four said persons for offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Midway the trial, the fourth accused (Satish Chander @ Chandra) jumped bail and inspite of the issuance of duress process against him, his presence could not be secured. He was declared a proclaimed offen...
Tag this Judgment!Indusind Bank Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i) impugns the orders dated 4th July, 2013, 31st December, 2013 and 21st April, 2014 of the respondent Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (ECGC) rejecting the claim of the petitioner in respect of Packing Credit Export Credit Guarantee (PCECG) No.0500100361; and, (ii) seeks mandamus to the respondent ECGC to make payment to the petitioner in respect of the claim dated 4th December, 2012 in respect of the said PCECG. 2. The petition came up before this Court first on 3rd September, 2014 when notice thereof was issued. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent ECGC to which rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. The counsels for the parties were heard on 17th May, 2016 and judgment reserved. 3. It is the case of the petitioner i) that the petitioner is a scheduled bank; ii) that the respondent ECGC is a public corporation owned by the Government of India and a State within the meaning of Article ...
Tag this Judgment!Ravinder Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Pratibha Rani, J. 1. On being convicted by the learned Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 356/379 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years for the offence punishable under Section 356 IPC and RI for three years for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and appeal also being dismissed by learned ASJ vide impugned order dated November 29, 2014, the revisionist herein has invoked the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 397 CrPC r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. 2. The case FIR No. 182/2012 was registered at PS Saket on the basis of statement made by Smt.Reeta the complainant against the petitioner/convict Ravinder for commission of offence punishable under Section 356/379/411 IPC. On the date of occurrence i.e. June 08, 2012 the complainant along with her brothers and family was going to Itawa in a car. Her sister-in-law (bhabhi) was also in the same car with her child and when they reached at the traffic signal at Sector-3, Pushp Vihar, MB Road near Khanpu...
Tag this Judgment!National Highways Authority of India Vs. M/s. Gayatri Eci (Jv)
Court: Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. National Highway Authority of India (hereafter 'NHAI') has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act'), inter alia, praying that the Award dated 17.12.2015 (hereafter 'the impugned award') passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (hereafter 'the AT') be set aside. 2. The impugned award was rendered in respect of the disputes raised by M/s Gayatri - ECI (JV)( hereafter 'GEJV') - a joint venture between M/s Gayatri Projects Ltd and M/s ECI Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd.- in relation to the Contract Agreement dated 19.08.2005 (hereafter 'the Agreement') entered into between the parties for "the work of widening of existing two lane to four from Km 93.00 to Km 60.00 of Bijni to Assam, West Bengal NH-31C on section of East West Corridor under Phase-II Contract Package"(hereafter 'the Works'). 3. NHAI invited tenders for the Works and GEJV's bid, submitted on 18.04.2005, in response to the invitation to ten...
Tag this Judgment!Deeksha Madaan Through Her Father And Natural Guardian, and Another Vs ...
Court: Delhi
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J 1. The Petitioners seek a mandamus thereby directing the Respondent 1 and 3/Directorate of Education to take action against the Respondent no. 2/school for not adhering to the norms and instructions regarding assessment, evaluation and promotion of students from Class I to IX and Class XI issued by the Directorate of Education under Rule 41 of Delhi School Education rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) and for directing the Respondent/School to have the accountancy paper of the Petitioners rechecked and revaluated from some independent agency and a further mandamus directing the Respondent/School to promote the Petitioners to class XII. 2. The petitioners appeared in the final examinations of class XI for the academic session 2015 2016, which were held during 08.03.2016 to 21.03.2016. 3. The result of the final examination was declared on 31.03.2016. The Petitioner/Deeksha Madaan (in WP(C) 6709/2016) in her accountancy paper secured 18.5 % marks in th...
Tag this Judgment!Inventa Cleantec Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Amit Mudgal
Court: Delhi
1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns a decree dated 30th May, 2015 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ)-03(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for recovery of Rs.4,79,371/- along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. from 13th October, 2014 till realisation in Suit No.290/2014 under Order 37 of the CPC filed by the respondent, for recovery of Rs.5,49,678/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum, as a consequence of dismissal of the application filed by the appellant for leave to defend. 2. Notice of the appeal was issued and subject to the appellant depositing a sum of Rs.3,18,183/- with this Court and which is reported to have been deposited, execution stayed. Vide subsequent order dated 22nd February, 2016 the Trial Court record was requisitioned, the ad interim order made absolute and the appeal admitted for hearing and considering the fact that in the event of the app...
Tag this Judgment!Sonu Vs. Premlata and Another
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Sonu and his wife Premlata are aggrieved by the order dated February 20, 2014 disposing of application filed by Premlata under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. From out of the wedlock a daughter currently aged 9 years and a son currently aged 7 years were born. Premlata was a housewife. She has no income. It is not the case of Sonu that his wife was or is earning any money. 2. As per the impugned order, Premlata has been awarded maintenance in sum of Rs.18,000/- per month from the date of the application filed by Premlata. In arriving at the income of Sonu the learned Judge Family Court has taken into account the income tax returns of Sonu for the years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 and has highlighted that the same show that Sonu is engaged in a private business from which gross receipts increased from Rs.4,38,743/- in the year 2008-09 to Rs.6,40,530/- in the year 2010-11. The learned Judge Family Court has noted that as per the returns salary paid b...
Tag this Judgment!Naval Kishore Sehgal Vs. Gurbachan Sehgal
Court: Delhi
Rani Pratibha Rani, J. 1. After more than two decades of solemnisation of marriage and ten years of separation, the appellant/husband filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on account of cruelty but at the same time pleading that parties have been residing separately for more than twelve years. Why he preferred not to seek dissolution of marriage on account of desertion as well, cannot be ascertained from the record. On the basis of averments made in the divorce petition and appreciating the evidence led in support thereof, learned Judge, Family Court held that the accusations of cruelty against the wife could not be proved. This resulted in dismissal of the divorce petition. 2. The judgment and decree dated July 02, 2015 has now been assailed by the appellant/husband before this Court in the hope that the marriage having become dead, he may be able to get the marital ties with the respondent/wife snapped. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband during hearing of the app...
Tag this Judgment!Johnson And Johnson Ltd. Vs. Gajendra Singh Rawat
Court: Delhi
Sunita Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 14.03.2008 passed by the learned Labour Court vide which the claim filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the workman ) was allowed and he was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.10,44,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of termination till realization besides litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-. 2. The factual matrix of the case leading to filing of the present petition succinctly stated is as follows: 3. The workman was initially appointed on six months probation with effect from 01.11.1970 by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the management ) and on successful completion of probation period, he was given permanent employment with effect from 01.05.1971 as Peon-cum-Packing Assistant . Thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Packer with effect from 01.01.1983 by the Controller of Head Office at Mumbai and then as an Assist...
Tag this Judgment!