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.
Manoj Kaul vs.state of Nct & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2018
$~9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:9. h August, 2018 + CRL.M.C. 3854/2015 & CRL.M.A. 13709/2015, 4123/2018, 29707-29708/2018 MANOJ KAUL ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Madhukar Pandey with Mr. Sumeet Kaul, Mr. Damanjit Kaur & Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for State. Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal with Mr. Ankit Gupta, Advs. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The petitioner is one of the accused persons (second accused) facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act, 1881) in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate in the criminal complaint (CC No.11828/1/2010) instituted by the second respondent, he being one of the directors (authorized signatory) of company M/s. H.M. Informatics Pvt. Ltd. He had moved an application under Section 147 Crl. M.C. No.3854/2015 Page 1 of 7 of the N.I. Act, 1881 praying to the Me...
Suraj Bhan vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2018
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A.1/2003 SURAJ BHAN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S.P. Kaushal with Mr. Ravinder Mehandra, Dhananjay Kaushal, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL JUDGMENT0908.2018 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7th August, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (ASJ) in Sessions Case No.arising out of FIR No.1registered at Police Station (PS) Paschim Vihar convicting the Appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and the order on sentence dated 12th August, 2002 whereby for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for one year; for the offence under Section 307 IPC ...
Ajay Khandelwal vs.the State & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2018
$~2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:9. h August, 2018 + CRL.M.C. 2090/2014 and Crl.M.A.7001/2014 AJAY KHANDELWAL ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Arora, Advocate with Ms. Radhika Arora & Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocates versus THE STATE & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State. Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate with Mr. Siddhant Nath, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. By the order dated 24.01.2014, the Metropolitan Magistrate, acting upon the report of investigation which had been submitted before him pursuant to order dated 20.09.2006 in the context of the First Information Report (FIR) No.41/2000 of Police Station Punjabi Bagh, directed summons to be issued to the petitioner calling him upon to appear as an accused to face prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 406/420/120-B/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Crl. M.C. No.2090/2014 Page 1 of 14 2. Aggrieved by the said order(s), the petiti...
Mithlesh & Anr vs.mukesh Kumar & Ors (The Oriental Insurance co.ltd)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: August 09, 2018 + MAC.APP. 389/2018 & CM153682018 1. MITHLESH & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar and Ms. Pankaj versus Kumari, Advocates MUKESH KUMAR & ORS (THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD) Through: Mr. S.P. Jain, Mr. Himanshu .....Respondents Gambhir, Ms. Amandeep Kaur and Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Impugned order of 28th November, 2017 dismisses appellants claim petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction while refusing to rely upon copy of Aadhaar card, which was duly verified by the concerned SHO. On the last date of hearing, records were requisitioned.2. Learned counsel for appellants submits that Aadhaar Card is a valid proof of identity as well as of residence and the Tribunal has erred in not relying upon it.3. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order of 28th November, 2017 and the record of this case, I find that first appellants ...
Mausumi Bhattacharjee vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2018
$~3 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 4798/2015 Decided on:9th August, 2018 MAUSUMI BHATTACHARJEE Through: Mr. C. Rajaram & Ms. Shashi ........ Petitioner STATE Panwar, Advs. versus Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for ..... Respondent the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The petitioner is facing proceedings in a criminal case arising out of FIR No.41/2000 of police station Punjabi Bagh involving offences punishable under Sections 406/420/120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered on the basis of charge-sheet which was submitted upon conclusion of investigation. The case is at the stage of consideration of charge. She had moved an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) seeking direction to the investigating agency to bring on record certain documents which she claimed had been seized from her possession, her contention, inter alia, being that she had resigned from the Ram Charitable Trust, Jaipu...
Madhu Joshi vs.university of Delhi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2018
#64 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 8259/2018 MADHU JOSHI versus Judgment delivered on:09. 08.2018 ........ Petitioner UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr. Tarun Narang, Advocate along with Ms. Madhu Joshi,... Petitioner-in-person : Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays as follows:-"In view of the facts and circumstances stated above it is prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to:1. Issue direction, writ or order to respondent No.1 & 2 to restore the admission of the candidate/petitioner in M.A. Sociology Programme. or direction, writ 2. Issue quash the order to W.P.(C) 8259/2018 Page 1 of 7 acknowledgement slip dated 30.07.2018 which states the admission status as Admission cancelled on Applicants/Pe...
Kiran @ Babli & Anr. Vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2018
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: July 25, 2018 Judgment delivered on: August 08, 2018 CRL. A. 277/2012 1. KIRAN @ BABLI2 NEERAJ ....Appellants Through: Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate. Versus STATE ....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP with Mr. Ashray Behura, Advocate with Inspector Narender Kumar, PS Burari. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA JUDGEMENT0808.2018 I.S.Mehta, J.1. Instant appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 21.12.2011 and order on sentence dated 24.12.2010 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, NDPS (North), Delhi in Session Case No.27/10, titled State v. Neeraj & Anr. which is arising out of FIR No.80/2010 under Section 498A/304B/3IPC, at Police Station Burari, whereby appellants have CRL.A. 277/2012 Page 1 of 18 been convicted under Section 3IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further und...
Central Bureau of Investigation vs.anand Vishwa @Bishwa &Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: November 09, 2016 Judgment Delivered on: August 08, 2018 + CRL.A. 951/2015 ANAND VISHWA @ BISHWA ..... Appellant THE CBI Represented by: Mr. Abhishek Vikram with Ms. Vasundara Chauhan, Advs. Versus Represented by: Mr.Sanjeev Bhandari, SPP with ..... Respondent + CRL.A. 684/2016 Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Adv. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Sanjeev Bhandari, SPP with Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Adv. Versus ANAND VISHWA @ BISHWA & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Represented by: Mr. Abhishek Vikram with Ms. Vasundara Chauhan, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Jivesh Tiwari with Ms. Suman Chauhan, Adv. for R-2. CRL.A. 1286/2014 + FARIS SHUJA JALALI @ ANUP ..... Appellant Mr. Jivesh Tiwari with Ms. Suman Chauhan, Adv. for R-2. Versus THE CBI Represented by: Mr.Sanjeev Bhandari, SPP with ..... Respondent Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Adv. Page 1 of 15 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Vide impugned judgment dated J...
Rajendra Pratap Singh vs.state & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:8. h August, 2018 CRL.L.P. 517/2018 RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH ........ Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Jaspreet Singh Kapur and STATE & ORS Mr. Inderjit Singh Kapur, Advocates. versus Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP ........ RESPONDENTS for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) Crl. M.A. No.29546/2018 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CRL.L.P. 517/2018 and Crl. M.A. No.29545/2018 (additional evidence) 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 7th June, 2018 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short NI Act), the petitioner/complainant has preferred the present leave petition.2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 and the petitioner were living in the same locality were known to each other for the past 15 years. On 17th November 2009, respondent...
Punjab National Bank vs.munish Monga & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2018
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.356/2014 % PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK8h August, 2018 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K.K. Malviya, Advocate. versus MUNISH MONGA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. H.S. Parihar and Mr. Kuldeep S. Parihar, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code Civil Procedure,1908(CPC) is filed by the appellant/plaintiff-Bank impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 24.5.2014 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs.5,70,751/- with interest filed by the appellant/plaintiff bank.2. The cause of action as pleaded in the suit plaint was that the respondent nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2(respondent No.1 now being represented by his legal heirs) opened a joint saving fund RFA No.356/2014 Page 1 of 5 account No.19897 on 21.2.1993 at the Rani Bagh, Delhi, branch of the appellant/plaintiff/...
- ‹ Prev
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- Next ›
- Last »