Delhi Court February 2019 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2019 Page 41 of about 750 results (0.018 seconds)Naman Jethani & Ors. Vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:14. h February, 2019 CRL. M.C. 2365/2018 NAMAN JETHANI & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Jai Deep Singh & Ms. Aashna Jethani, Advs. versus + STATE & ANR. Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP ........ RESPONDENTS for the State with SI Gaurav, PS Rani Bagh. Mr. H.S. Dhillon, Adv. for R-2 with R-2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The second respondent was married to first petitioner as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 05.12.2015. On 17.12.2016, she lodged first information report (FIR) No.461/2016 with police station Rani Bagh under Sections 498A/4of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against her husband (first petitioner), his mother (second petitioner), his sister (third petitioner) and a friend of the family of the husband (fourth petitioner). On conclusion of the investigation, police filed report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) on which cognizanc...
Tag this Judgment!Shashi Kumar Mahajan & Ors. Vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
* I N T H E H I G H C O U R T O F D E L H I A T N E W D E L H I % Judgment reserved on:24. h January, 2019 Judgment delivered on:14. h February 2019 + CRL.REV.P. 615/2018 & Crl.M.A.28367/2018 (stay) SHASHI KUMAR MAHAJAN & ORS ........ Petitioners versus STATE & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, Adv For the... RESPONDENTS: Mr. Hirein Sharma, AFP for the State with SI Sharfuddin, PS Jagat Puri. Mr. Deepak Tyagi, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J1... Petitioners impugn order on charge dated 15.05.2018.... Petitioner No.1 is the father-in-law; petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law and petitioner No.3 is the husband of the complainant/respondent No.2. By the impugned order on charge, charge under Section 354/354A/354C IPC has been framed against the petitioner No.1 (father-in-law). Charge under Section 498A/34 IPC r/w Section Dowry Prohibition Act and u...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Mahraullia & Ors. Vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.M.C. 828/2019 Judgment delivered on:14. 02.2019 ARJUN MAHRAULLIA & ORS. STATE & ANR. versus ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioners : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. along with petitioners For the... RESPONDENTS: Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, Addl. PP for the State with SI Sanjeet Singh Mr. Phillip Massey and Mr. Suman Mohanpuria, Advs. for R-2 with R-2 in person. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) Crl. M.A. 3342/2019 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 828/2019 1.... Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.274 of 2013 under Sections 498A/4IPC registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, Delhi, based on a settlement. CRL.M.C. 828/2019 Page 1 of 3 2.3. Subject FIR emanates out of matrimonial discord. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have settled their disputes. As per the settlement, all the dowry a...
Tag this Judgment!State vs.vinay Kumar
Court: Delhi
$~10 & 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:14. 02.2019 % + CRL.REV.P. 635/2014 JAI BHAGWAN versus THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI ) ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent + CRL.REV.P. 40/2015 STATE versus VINAY KUMAR Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Sharma with Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl.Rev.Pet.635/2014 Mr. Hiren Sharma, APP for the State in Crl.Rev.P.40/2015 ASI Prem Ram Arya, PS Hari Nagar. For the Respondent: Mr. Hiren Sharma, APP for the State in Crl.Rev.P. 635/2014 Mr. Prem Chhetri, Advocate Crl.Rev.P.40/2015 ASI Prem Ram Arya, PS Hari Nagar. for respondent in CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A.860/2015 P.40/2015 (for condonation of delay) in Crl.Rev. Page 1 of 8 CRL.REV.P. 635/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 40/2015 For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed. The delay in filing the petition is cond...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Kuantum Papers Ltd vs.m/s Shree Swastic Sales Corporation Pvt Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
17 $~ * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 2854/2015 M/S KUANTUM PAPERS LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Aman Shankar, Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Khosla, Advocate. versus M/S SHREE SWASTIC SALES CORPORATION PVT LTD & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand M. Mishra, Advocate for defendant No.2. Date of Decision:14. h February, 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J.: (Oral) I.As. 3483/2018, 4354/2018 1. Present applications have been filed on behalf of the defendant no.2 under Order XXXVII Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC for setting aside the order dated 27th February, 2017 (dismissing the leave to defend application filed by the defendants) as well as the decree dated 10th July, Page 1 of 6 CS(OS) 2854/2015 2017 and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 575 and 715 days respectively, in filing the aforesaid applications.2. It is averred in the applications that the counsel/l...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Kumar & Ors. Vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 14, 2019 CRL.M.C. 830/2019 and CRL.M.A. 3345/2019 DINESH KUMAR & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Kapil Kaushik, Advocate Versus STATE & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with ASI Rajender Singh Mr. Manohar Kumar, Advocate with Respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.701/2016, under Sections 498A/406/3of IPC registered at police station Alipur, Outer District Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of 17th March, 2018 (Annexure P-3). Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court is the complainant/first informant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by ASI Rajender Singh on the basis of identity proof produced by her. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has ...
Tag this Judgment!Saurav Sharma vs.state (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:14. 02.2019 BAIL APPLN. 1277/2018 & CRL.M.A. 10573/2018 SAURAV SHARMA versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the Respondent: Mr.Tanmay Nagar. Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State. SI Sandeep Panwar, P.S.Distt.Cyber Cell, South-East. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.61/2018, under Sections 379/419/420/468/471/120B read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Lajpat Nagar (now transferred to Cyber Cell, District South East).2. Subject FIR was registered consequent to a fraudulent transaction in the credit card of the complainant. Investigation led the prosecution to the arrest of the co-accused, in whose possession, it is alleged that 55 mobile sim cards, 22 empty packets of mobile sim cards, 5 mobile phones, one laptop, 02 WiFi Router...
Tag this Judgment!Amit Kumar Jha vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Decided on:14. h February, 2019 CRL. M.C. 1840/2018 AMIT KUMAR JHA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar & Ms. versus Priyanka Verma, Advs. STATE & ANR. Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP ........ RESPONDENTS for the State. Mr. Parminder Singh Dhanjal, Adv. with R-2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The second respondent was married to the first petitioner as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 13.05.2007. On 03.03.2010, she lodged first information report (FIR) No.51/2010 with police station Shahabad Dairy under Sections 498A/4of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against her husband (first petitioner) and his mother (second petitioner). On conclusion of the investigation, police filed report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) on which cognizance was taken, the first petitioner having been summoned as accused, the said matter being pending on the file of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ujjwal Jain & Ors. Vs.union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:14. 02.2019 + W.P.(C) 5377/2016 and CM Nos. 22424/2016, 24097/2016, 25986/2016, 41287/2016 & 21958/2017 UJJWAL JAIN & ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner: Mr Pradeep Dhingra, Mr Mohit Nandwani, Mr Nishant Kumar, Ms Hitendra and Mr Praveen Kumar For the... RESPONDENTS: Mrs Bharathi Raju, CGSC for R-1/UOI. Mr Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for R-2 & 3. CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, challenging the Slot Sale Policy (hereafter the said policy), as announced by respondent No.2 (Prasar Bharti), by a request for proposal (RFP) issued on 23.05.2016. Further, the petitioners pray that directions be issued to respondent No.2 to not give effect to the said policy.2. The petitioners are producers of television content. The petitioners contend that the ...
Tag this Judgment!State (Govt of Nct of Delhi) vs.ranjeet Kumar
Court: Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:14. h February, 2019 CRL.A. 435/2017 Represented by: Ms.Rajni Gupta, APP for the State ..... Appellant STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) versus RANJEET KUMAR Represented by: Mr.Pramod Kumar, Advocate ..... Respondent 1.2. Admit. By the present appeal, the State challenges the impugned judgment dated 11th December 2014 whereby the respondent was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 279/338/304-A IPC in FIR No.55/2010 registered at PS Saket.3. Learned APP for the State contends that there was no traffic signal nearby and the truck driver was rash and negligent while driving.4. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the cyclist came from the left side of the truck and immediately turned right due to which the respondent could not control his vehicle. Thus, he having not committed any rash and negligent act, the acquittal be upheld.5. Process of law was ...
Tag this Judgment!