Delhi Court August 2018 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.
Sanjay @ Sanjeet vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:20. h August, 2018 CRL.A. 1112/2017 SANJAY @ SANJEET ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Nitin Joshi, Advocate. STATE versus Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP ..... Respondent for State with SI Pankaj Kumar, PS Vasant Kunj, South. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) CRL.A. 1112/2017 1. By the present appeal the appellant challenges the conviction under Section 354D IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short POCSO Act) and the order on sentence directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of 7,000/-; in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.2. The above noted FIR was registered on the complaint of the father of the victim girl aged ten years. Father of the victim girl who appeared in the witness box as PW-1 in the FIR stated that his daughter was studying in 6th standard and on ...
Anand Kumar Thakur vs.narcotic Control Bureau
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2018
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:10. h August, 2018 Decided on:20. h August, 2018 BAIL APPLN. 2343/2017 IKECHUKWU CHUKWUBUIKEM STANLEY Represented by: Mr.Vikas Gautam, Advocate ........ Petitioner versus Represented by: Mr.P.C.Aggarwal, Advocate ..... Respondent NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU BAIL APPLN. 503/2018 ANAND KUMAR THAKUR ........ Petitioner Represented by: Mr.K.G.Sharma and Mr.R.K.Goel, Advocates versus NAROTIC CONTROL BUREAU CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Represented by: Mr.P.C.Aggarwal, Advocate ..... Respondent 1. By these two petitions, the petitioners seek bail in complaint case No.SC/2titled as NCB Vs. Ikechukwu Chukwubuikem Stanley & Ors. pending in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Act, at Patiala House.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ikechukwu Chukwubuikem Stanley states that from the facts even on the face of the prosecution case, the petitioner cannot be said to be in conscious possession of the narcotics drugs. No recovery has bee...
Shri Vikram Rathor and Another vs.the State (n.c.t. Of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2018
$~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.M.C. 4194/2018 Judgment delivered on:20. 08.2018 SHRI VIKRAM RATHOR AND ANOTHER ........ Petitioners versus THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR. Advocates who appeared in this case: ........ RESPONDENTS For the... Petitioner : For the Respondent: Mr.Chander Bhan, Adv. Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Addl. PP for the State with SI Surender Singh, P.S.Mianwali Nagar. Mr.Brijesh Kumar, Adv. for R-2. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT2008.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.683 of 2014 under Sections 498A/406/323/3of the IPC registered at Police Station Mianwali Nagar, New Delhi, based on a settlement. It is contended that the FIR was lodged consequent to a matrimonial discord.2. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the parties have settled their disputes by way of a settlement before the Family Courts West, Tis Hazari, Delhi dated 07.08.2018 which has been executed between the partie...
Darshan Mukhiya vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:25. h April, 2018 Decided on:20. h August, 2018 CRL.A. 808/2017 DARSHAN MUKHIYA ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Dinesh Malik and Mr.Akash Saini, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kr. Garg, APP for the State with SI Om Pal Singh, PS Model Town. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 By the present appeal, Darshan Mukhiya challenges the impugned judgment dated 28th February, 2017 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 392/397/120B IPC in FIR No.99/2011 registered at PS Model Town and the order on sentence dated 15th March, 2017 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of 10,000/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and to pay a fine of 1,000/- and in default whereof to undergo simple...
Varun Pahwa vs.renu Chaudhary
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2018
$~61 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CM(M) 958/2018 & CM APPL. 33415/2018 Date of decision:20. 08.2018 VARUN PAHWA ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Avinash Kumar Lakhanpal, Adv. versus RENU CHAUDHARY ..... Respondent Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA % ORDER (ORAL) 20.08.2018 ANU MALHOTRA, J.CM APPL. 33415/2018 1.2. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. CM(M) 958/2018 3.4. Submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner assails the impugned order dated 23.01.2018 of the Trial Court of the learned ADJ-06, Central, Delhi in CS No.CM(M) 958/2018 Page 1 of 10 128vide which the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to amend the plaint was disallowed with the matter having been renotified for arguments on the maintainability of the suit.5. The plaint instituted on behalf of the plaintiff i.e. the present petitioner was a Suit for the recovery of Rs.25 lakhs along...
Veena Devi vs.govt. Of Nct of Delhi & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2018
$~15 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 10457/2016 VEENA DEVI ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. S.C. Sagar & Mr. Chana Ravi, Advocates. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Urvi Mohan, Advocate for Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC for R-1, 6 & 7. Ms. Arti Bansal, Advocate for R- 2 to 5. SI Brijesh Kumar, PS Lodhi Colony. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER2008.2018 % VIBHU BAKHRU, J The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, claiming 1. compensation on account of the fatal accident met by her son. The petitioner states that on 02.07.2012, her son (Hanish Maurya) 2. was returning home from his office at about 9.00 p.m. She claims that on his way back from office, her son met with a fatal accident on the stretch of the road underneath the flyover at Jangpura. It is stated that he was riding a motorcycle, which skidded on the debri/malba that was dumped on the road. Mr Hanish Maurya was taken to Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma...
Uma Shankar Gupta vs.state (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2018
$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.M.C. 3361/2018 Judgment delivered on:20. 08.2018 UMA SHANKAR GUPTA ........ Petitioner versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioners : For the Respondent: CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Kamal Kumar Ghai, APP for the State. SI Pradeep Rai, PS Lahori Gate. JUDGMENT2008.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.282/2000 under Sections 448/3IPC, Police Station Lahori Gate.2. The parties are related to each other. The subject FIR was registered consequent to a dispute which took place with regard to the occupation of a shop.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have settled their disputes. The terms of settlement have been recorded before the Trial Court on 22.12.2017. CRL.M.C. 3361/2018 Page 1 of 2 4. The petitioner, who is present in Court in person, undertake...
Rajiv Mehta vs.savita Mehta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:20. h August, 2018 $~16 * % + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 138/2017 RAJIV MEHTA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. C. Prakash and Mr. Manmohan Singh Narula, Advocates. SAVITA MEHTA CORAM: versus Through Nemo ..... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) CM.APPL280012017(delay of 68 days) 1. This is an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of 68 days delay in filing the present appeal. Reliance has been placed on the judgment Shivram Dodanna Shetty vs. Sou. Sharmila Shivram Shetty passed by the High Court of Bombay on 01.12.2016 to contend that for an appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (4) of Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as HMA) would apply, which is 90 days.2. For the reasons stated in the application and the judgment relied upon by the appellant ...
Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr vs.govt. Of Nct of Delhi & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:15. 03.2018 Judgment pronounced on:20. 08.2018 * + W.P.(C) No.9014/2017 DR. POORNIMA ADVANI & ANR ....... Petitioners Through: Mr.Abhishek Puri with Ms. Surbhi Gupta and Mr. V. Siddharth, Advocates. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ramesh Singh, Standing Counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi with Mr. Chirayu Jain and Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.Prefatory facts: This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.10.2016 1. issued by the Collector of Stamps (HQ.) represented by respondent No.1/Govt. of NCT of Delhi. By virtue of this order, the Collector of Stamps (HQ.) has rejected the application preferred by the petitioners for a refund of stamp duty amounting to Rs.28,10,000/-, on account of the loss of e-stamp certificate bearing No.IN-DL67287494587124O, dated 6.7.2016 (hereafter referred to as 'stamp paper').2. The sole g...
Jagmohan Goswami vs.sudha Saxena
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2018
Date of decision:20. h August, 2018. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO7842003 JAGMOHAN GOSWAMI * % + CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 Versus SUDHA SAXENA Through: Respondent-in-person ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajinder Dhawan, Mr. B. S. Rana and Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocates. ..... Respondent This appeal under Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 impugns the judgment and decree [dated 17th September, 2003 in HMA23920of the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi]. of dismissal of the petition filed by the appellant husband for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.2. The appeal came up first before this Court on 17th November, 2003, when notice thereof was ordered to be issued and the Trial Court record requisitioned. Vide order dated 15th December, 2004, the appellant husband was directed to pay to the respondent wife 15,000/- on account of litigation expenses. The order dated 14th February, 2006 rec...