Delhi Court September 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.
Surbir Singh vs.customs (Preventive)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2018
* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:12. h September, 2018 Judgment delivered on:24. h September, 2018 + BAIL APPLN.849/2016 SURBIR SINGH CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner: Mr.H.S. Bhullar, Advocate with Ms.Bhawani Gupta, Ms.Sarabjeet Bhullar, Ms.Manya Pundhir & Ms. Snigdha Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. P.C. Aggarwal Special Public Prosecutor NCB. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR. JUSTICESANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.1.... Petitioner seeks regular bail in Sessions Case No.1/3/14 pending in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi under Section 20(c)/read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 titled Customs vs. Surbir Singh & Anr.2. A complaint was filed before the Court of the Special Judge, NDPS against the petitioner and co-accused Harmeet Singh. It is alleged that on 29.08.2013 during X ray of goods meant for export through DHL Courier...
State Govt of Nct of Delhi vs.satish Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:15. h March, 2018 Decided on:24. h September, 2018 CRL.A. 666/2017 STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the State. versus SATISH KUMAR ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. D.K. Mathur, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 By the present appeal, State seeks setting aside of order dated 4th November, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the conviction for the offences punishable under Section 2(ia) (a) (b) (j) and (m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short PFA Act) read with Rules 23, 28 and 29 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short PFA Rules) punishable under Section 16(1A) of PFA Act was upheld. However, the sentence was reduced to the period till the rising of the Court and he was directed a fine of 35,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.2. Brief facts of the pre...
Rupantar Barua vs.state (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2018
$~78 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + RUPANTAR BARUA CRL.M.C. 4845/2018 Judgment delivered on:24. 09.2018 ........ Petitioner versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR....... RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Jangra, Advocate. Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for the State. SI Amit Dutt, PS Lajpat Nagar. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT2409.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.706/2016 under Sections 354/506/509 IPC, Police Station Lajpat Nagar.2. The allegations in the FIR are that there was a loan transaction between HDB Finance Company and the complainant and her husband and petitioner who is an employee of HDB Finance Company and had gone to the house of the complainant for the purpose of recovery of the instalment.3. It is alleged that at that time an altercation took place and petitioner is alleged to have misbehaved with the complainant. Subsequen...
Kanwar Singh (Since Deceased) Through Lrs vs.s.l. Jain & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:24. h September, 2018. RSA562018 & CM No.13389/2018 (for exemption from filing entire Trial Court record) KANWAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS ...Appellant Through: Mr. N. Prabhakar and Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Advs. Versus S.L. JAIN & ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW Through: None. ........ RESPONDENTS CM No.13388/2018 (for exemption) 1.2. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. RSA562018 & CM No.13389/2018 (for exemption from filing entire Trial Court record) 3. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 31st October, 2017 in RCA No.546of the Court of Additional District Judge-03 (South-West)]. of dismissal of First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree [dated 9th April, 2013 in Suit No.8of the Court of Civil Judge-6 (West)]. of dismiss...
Delhi Transport Corporation vs.neha & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: September 24, 2018 + CM(M) 1396/2017 & C.M. 44835/2017 1. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat & Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Advocates Versus NEHA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Impugned order of 14th September, 2017, dismisses petitioners application for recalling of order of 17th November, 2016, vide which petitioners evidence was closed.... Petitioner is the owner of bus in question.... Petitioners application to recall order of 17th November, 2016 has been dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as the Tribunal) on the ground that the application has been filed by petitioner at the stage of final arguments and also because despite sufficient opportunities given, petitioner has not led evidence.2. Learned counsel for petitioner assails the impugned order on the g...
Hans Kumar Gupta vs.lal Chand & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2018
$~20 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:24. h September, 2018 CS (OS) 3844/2014, I.As. 25118/2014, 14840/2017 & 7740/2018 HANS KUMAR GUPTA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Vidit Gupta, Advocate with LAL CHAND & ORS. versus Plaintiff in person. (M:9910995511) ..... Defendants Through: Mr. C. S. Bhandari, Advocate for D-1 (M:8860346364) Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate for D-2 & 3 (M:9811074290) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) I.A. 24025/2015 (u/O XII Rule 6 CPC) in CS (OS) 3844/2014 1. The present application has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking a decree on admissions. The Plaintiff relies on admissions by the Defendants that they have received a sum of Rs.2.40 crores as earnest money, along with Rs.13 Lakhs, which the Plaintiff incurred as expenses and charges deposited to the DDA.2. The brief background of the present suit is that the Plaintiff and Defendants Nos.1 to 3 entered into an agreement to sell dated 1st January, 2012 by which...
Shrijeet Mishra vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:4. h September, 2018 Pronounced on:24. h September, 2018 + CRL.M.C. 3700/2016 & CRL.M.A. 15476/2016 & 1068/2017 INDU JAIN & ANR. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo with Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Mr. Manish Shukla, Mr. Prashant Bhatnagar and Mr. Nishant Kumar, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for State. R2 in person. CRL.M.C. 3801/2016 & CRL.M.A. 15911/2016, 1066/2017, 8442/2017 SAMIR JAIN ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo with Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Mr. Manish Shukla, Mr. Prashant Bhatnagar and Mr. Nishant Kumar, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for State. R2 in person. + Crl.M.C. 3700/2016 & conn. Page 1 of 15 + CRL.M.C. 817/2017 & CRL.M.A. 3452/2017 DHANANJAY MAHAPATRA & ANR. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo with Mr. Yoginder Ha...
Minni Chaudhary vs.iqbal Singh @ Iqbal Ahmed
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2018
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on :05. h July, 2018 Judgment delivered on:24. h September, 2018 + CRL.REV. P.172/2015 & Crl. M.A. 4220/2015 & 3871/2017 MINNI CHAUDHARY ........ Petitioner IQBAL SINGH @ IQBAL AHMED ..... Respondent versus Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent : : Mr Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr. Satish Rana, Mr. Ashiwan Mishra and Mr. A.K. Singh, Advs. Mr Sunil Mittal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anupam S. Sharma and Mr. Parkash Aran, Advs. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.1.... Petitioner impugns order dated 19.01.2015, whereby the family court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125(3) Cr. P.C. and held that she has waived and surrendered her right to maintenance on permanent footing.2. It is contended by the petitioner that she got married with respondent on 31.12.1992 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. On joining the matrimonial home, she reali...
Mohd. Alam vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2018
$~ * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:09. 07.2018 Judgment delivered on:24. 09.2018 + Crl. A. No.1444/2012 MOHD. ALAM STATE Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Advocate (DHLSC) with Mr.Saurabh Kumar, Advocate. ..... Appellant versus ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for State along with Inspector Sudhir Kumar, P.S. Shalimar Bagh. + Crl. A. No.144/2016 MOHD. IQHLAK ..... Appellants Through: Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate STATE versus (DHLSC) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for State along with Inspector Sudhir Kumar, P.S. Shalimar Bagh. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA Crl A Nos.1444/2012 & 144/2016 Page 1 of 27 VIPIN SANGHI, J.JUDGMENT1 The present appeals have been filed by the appellants, namely, Mohd. Alam (Crl.A. 1444/2012) and Mohd. Iqhlak @ Asif (Crl.A. 144/2016) under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the common judgment of conviction dated 26.04.2012 rendered by the learned ASJ, Fast Tra...
Upendra Kumar vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2018
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:24. 09.2018 BAIL APPLN. 2051/2017 UPENDRA KUMAR STATE versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the Respondent: Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP for the State with SI Sanjeev, P.S.Mayur Vihar. Mr.Rajeev Chhetri, Adv. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT2409.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.248/2017 under Sectionof the IPC and Sections 6/of the POCSO Act, P.S. Mayur Vihar.2. The allegations in the FIR against the petitioner are that when the alleged offence was being committed by his brother at the rooftop, he came to roof, observed what was happening and thereafter left. It is contended that petitioner did not inform or object to the commission of the offence by the co-accused.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has BAIL APPLN. 2051/2017 Page 1 of 2 been falsely impl...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »