Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 588 OF 201.Date of Decision:04. h September 1. Dr. AVNEESH GUPTA 2 Dr. M.G. GUPTA 3 Dr. KUSUM LATA GUPTA ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Rebbeca John, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.K. Singh and Ms. Preeti Sigh, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC for the State with IO/SI Vipin Kumar. Mr. Vikas Arora and Mr. Dhiraj Manchanda, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR bearing No.29/2011 dated 05.02.2011 u/s 498A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Farsh Bazar, East Delhi.2. Before coming to the grounds set up in the petition for quashing of FIR, it will be in the fitness of things to have a glance at the FIR registered at the instance of respondent no.2, Smt. Sashi Kanta.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:26. h March, 2015 Date of Decision:20. h April, 2015 % + CRL. M.C. 5389/2014 K. DHANALAKSHMI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan with Mr. Vikramaditya, Advocates. versus THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Standing Counsel for CBI with Mr. Manoj Pant and Ms. Utkarsha, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH JUDGMENT1 By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (referred to as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner impugns registration of FIR bearing No.2172011A0012, under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act) / Section 109 IPC registered at Police Station CBI/ACU(V), New Delhi dated 23.11.2011.2. The concise facts of the present case as set out in the petition are that on 23.11.2011, on the basis of source information CBI registered the impugned FIR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:9. h January, 2015. + LPA No.8/2015, CM No.385/2015 (for condonation of 17 days delay in filing the appeal) INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION CO. LTD. ............ Appellant Through: Mr. A.S. Dateer, Adv. Versus FAHEEM BAIG & ORS ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 13th August, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of CM No.13032/2012 under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) filed by the appellant in Cont. Cas.(C) No.484/2011 filed by the respondent no.3 herein i.e. Ajmera Steel Pvt. Ltd. against the officers of the appellant. This appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing thereof and is listed subject to office objection as to the maintainability thereof.2. As far as the aspect of maintainability of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi190; [1974]95ITR117(Delhi)
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) These two petitions under section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code have been referred to the Division Bench mainly to consider the question whether the previous decision between the parties in C.W. 189-D/1965 acts as rest judicata barring the petitioner from raising in these petitions those contentions which have been aiready decided against him in the writ petition.(2) The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner Sharma in his return under the Income-Tax Act 1922 for the assessment year 1959- 60 claimed deduction for the payment of a sum of Rs. 18,000.00 allegediy made to M/s. Modem Sanitation for electrical and sanitary supervising charges during the relevant year. On enquiry, the lncome-Tax Officer was of the view that the alleged payee did not exist at ail and no such payment had been made by the petitioner. Not only the petitioner's daim to the deduction was disallowed in the assessment but two further proceedings were taken against the petitioner under the Inco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 27(1985)DLT226
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This is a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the judgment and order dated 4th June, 1984 made by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Delhi by which the learned Judge reversed the order dated 6th January, 1984 of the trial court, and finally rejected the application of the plaintiff in the suit for grant of temporary injunction. However, on admission of the revision, temporary injunction was granted by this court on 25-7-84 restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering with peaceful possession of the petitioner-plaintiff with respect to one half share of land in suit. (2) The brief facts are that the land measuring 22 bighas 17 biswas, Khasra Nos. 952, 953, 954 and 1052 min in village Kilokari, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi was owned by a Muslim who migrated to Pakistan and it became and evacuee property. Samman, father of the plaintiff and Hetu, father of the three defendants, were joint non-occupancy tenants in the land since before ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
P.S. Teji, J. 1. By this order, I shall dispose of both these applications. The present applications have been filed by the petitioners for cancellation of bail granted to the Kanhaiya Kumar, respondent no.2 in Crl.M.C. 1094/2016 and respondent no.1 in Crl.M.C. 1095/2016 (hereinafter referred to as respondent/accused ) vide order dated 02.03.2016 by this Court in FIR No.110/2016, under Sections 124-A/120-B/147/ 149/34 IPC, Police Station Vasant Kunj North. 2. Vide order dated 02.03.2016, this Court granted interim bail to the respondent/accused Kanhaiya Kumar for a period of six months. 3. The law regarding cancellation of bail is well settled. In the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana 1995 SCC (1) 349, it was observed that: Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1984CriLJ1866; 1984(2)Crimes665; 1984RLR523
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) This order will dispose of Cr. R. No. 13/83 & Cr.M. (M) 130/83 both moved by the Delhi Admin. These are against the orders of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Mr. K.B. Andley, directing return of the passports on superdari to respondents. (2) The background is that two cases stand registered u/Ss 420/468471/120-B, Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 & 26 of Immigration Act, 1922 at Police Station Palam Airport. They are to the effect that some unscrupulous persons have been sending Indian citizens to Middle East countries on the basis of forged Protector of Emigrants clearing stamps besides forged signatures of Protector of Emigrants, New Delhi. The passports of the respondents who in one case are 17 in number and in the other 15, were seized after they had been initially cleared by the air-port staff for going abroad. The investigation later by the crime branch revealed that those stamps and signatures of the Protector of Emigrants were, in-fact forged, The investigatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:-"10th December, 2018 + CRL.M.C. 2757/2018 & Crl.M.A. 9811/2018 MUKESH CHAND ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advocate versus THE STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) Crl.M.A. 49292/2018 (for revival of the petition) 1. The petitioner is facing criminal prosecution for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 on the basis of charge- sheet submitted in relation to FIR No.842/2014 of Police Station Hazarat Nizamuddin. He approached this court by the petition (Crl. M.C27572018) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to seek quashing of the said proceedings on the basis of payment of Rs.1,60,000/- to the second respondent, the power distribution company. The said petition was, however, withdrawn by the counsel, on instructions, by order dated 30.08.2018 and was dism...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:13. h February, 2019 W.P.(CRL) 462/2019 STELLAR CONSTELLATION PROJECTS P. LTD. & ORS. ........ Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Manisha Bhandari, Mr.Omkar Shrivastava, Mr.Anil Mathur and Mr.Divyadeep Chaturvedi, Advocates ..... Respondent versus DEEPAK GARG CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) Represented by: None Crl.M.A.No.3267/2019 Allowed subject to just exceptions. W.P.(Crl.) No.462/2019 & Crl.M.A.No.3266/2019 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 4th September, 2018 summoning the petitioners as accused on a complaint being CC No.1858/2017 filed by the respondent No.2 before the Court under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The first ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction over PS Malviya Nagar had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain W.P.(CRL) 462/2019 Page 1 of 8 the complaint as the complainant is a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 15(1979)DLT126; ILR1979Delhi464; 1979RLR32
Leila Seth, J. (1) The salient point in this case pertains to the amended Section 13(2) of the Prevent'on of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question posed is whether the amended provisions of the said sub-section of the Act amount to testimonial compulsion and thus violate the constitutional guarantee provided in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.(2) The petitioner, Ashok Kumar, is carrying on business of selling and storing Deshi Ghee at his shop No. 633, Khari Baoli, Delhi. He is a partner of M/s. Amar Dass Chaman Lal. It is alleged that a sample of Amar Special Sudh Ghee was taken by Food Inspector Shri S. C. Bhalla on 24th January, 1977 from the petitioner. The said sample was sent to the Public Analyst who by his report dated 29th January. 1977 found the said Sudh Ghee to be adulterated. On or about 4th April, 1978 Ashok Kumar received a memorandum dated 1st' April, 1978 from the Local Food Health Authority, Delhi Administration encl...
Tag this Judgment!