Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1978Delhi536
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This judgment in Murder Reference No. 1of 1977 will dispose of not only Cr. Appeals No. 43/77 and 44/77 (filedby Sunil Batra), 68/77 and 123/77 (filed by VipinKumar Jaggi and Ravinder Nath Kapur, respectively), 186/77and 187/77 (filed by Shahwar Mohd. Khan), but also Cr. Appeal No. 164 of 1977, referred by the State seeking to enhance the sentence onthe other three appellants except Sunil Batra (who will hereafter bereferred to as Sunil). For purposes of convenience Vipan Kumar JaggI will hereafter be referred to V. jaggi, the name which appears frequently:CD/78-2in evidence; Ravinder Nath Kapoor will hereafter be referred loas Ravi and Shahwar Khan as Shahwar only.(2) Sunil has been convicted under Sections 120-B, 302, 396 as wellas under S. 395 read with Ss. 397 and 398 1. P. C. for having causedthe death of both Bansi Ram and Ram Niwas, the gun man and thedriver, respectively, of the green coloured van of the Union Bank ofIndia, Chandni Chowk (bearing No. Dhb 76...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. The journey, in the present case, has been navigated by the Designated Judge of the Special Court constituted under Section 23 of the Prevention of Terrorists Activities Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as POTA). In the Murder Reference and the connected appeals arising out of the judgment dated 16.12.2002, we are called upon to decide the legality and validity of the trial as also the sustainability of the judgment pronounced by the Designated Judge of the Special Court, POTA. By the impugned judgment, the learned Designated Judge has held that the prosecution has successfully brought home the charge of conspiracy against accused Nos. 1 to 3, for having entered into a conspiracy with the 5 slain terrorists who had attacked Parliament House on 13.12.2001 along with Mohd. Masood Azhar, Gazi Baba @ Abu Zehadi @ Abu Seqlain and Tariq Ahmed, all Pakistani nationals (declared as proclaimed offenders), to procure...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1988]64CompCas497(Delhi)
D.P. Wadhwa J.1. The company, Wearwell Cycle Co. (India) Ltd., was ordered to be wound up on March 9, 1978 (OP NO) 54 of 1977), on a creditor's petition, In fact, the company supported the winding up petition. The amount of debt was Rs. 10,530.89. The company did not file any reply to the petition, but in the relay to an application seeking interim orders (CS No. 362 of 1977), the company admitted that it was unable to pay its debts. The petitioning creditor had alleged that there were numerous creditors of the company who were not paid and that the company was doing no business for want of funds and loss of provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), and there were allegations of mismanagement by the directors of the company. It was also stated that it appeared that on getting wind of the intention of the creditors to file a winding up petition and other applications for preservation of the assets of the company, the company 'transferred its valuable tenancy rights in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 62(1996)DLT313
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) I had the advantage of reading the opinion of my learned Brother K. Ramamoorthy. I am in respectful agreement with the conclusions reached by brother Ramamoorthy that all the appeals and writ petitions deserve dismissal. In his judgment Brother Ramamoorthy has dealt with various aspects of the matter in great detail as also the decisions cited before us. Considering, however, the gravity of unauthorised construction and misuse and numerous cases which come up before Courts seeking injunction relating to such constructions, I would notice few salient facts of these cases. (2) The unauthorised construction and unauthorised user of residential building for commercial purposes in Delhi has gained alarming proportions and crossed all limits. At the very outset I may state that these activities are against the interests of the Society at large and need to be dealt with firmly. (3) The common questions of fact and law are involved in these batch of writ petitions and app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VAD(Delhi)689; 69(1997)DLT188
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) This is an appeal by the appellant Ranjit Singh under Sub-section 2 of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against conviction by judgment dated 26th March, 1993 and order of sentence dated 27th March, 1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1984. (2) The appellant has been convicted and sentenced under six heads. First, for conspiracy to kill Baba Gurbachan Singh, under Section 120-B, IPC. Secondly, for the murder of Baba Gurbachan Singh in pursuance of the conspiracy under Section 302 read with Section 120B, IPC. Thirdly, for the murder of Pratap Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. Fourthly, for attempt to murder Kuldip Singh Walia under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC. Fifthly, for conspiring to cause explosion of hand-grenades to endanger life and property under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Lastly, for possessing arms and ammunition with intent to use the same fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The petitioners, as pro-bono publico, have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short the Commission), the respondent No.2 herein, to issue the tariff order approved by it on 28th/29th April, 2010 and pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. It is profitable to note here that various assertions have been made with regard to the issues relating to the finalization of the tariff by the Commission under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for brevity 2003 Act), the illegality committed by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) in asking the Commission not to issue the tariff and further how the consumers have been affected by the non-issuance of the tariff order. In the course of the pendency of the writ petition, there was impleadment of certain respondents, namely, BSE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1988(18)ECC358; 1988(19)LC131(Delhi); 1989(39)ELT211(Del)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. The main question involved in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the Central Board of Excise and Customs could invest in the Director (Audit) in the Directorate General of Inspection and Audit (Customs & Central Excise), New Delhi, the powers of a Collector of Central Excise for the purposes of Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the assign to him any pending cases for investigation and adjudication. 2. The National Tobacco Co. of India Limited was incorporated and was an existing company at the relevant time within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Calcutta. It was engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacture and sale of cigarettes and smoking mixtures. It had a factory at Agarpara in the State of West Bengal and another factory at Biccavole in the State of Andhra Pradesh. With effect from March 1, 1977 it merged with M/s. Duncan's Agro Industries Limited, the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. These petitions have been filed by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), a company incorporated under the Laws of Sweden (hereafter also referred to as 'Ericsson'), inter alia, impugning orders dated 12th November, 2013 and 16th January, 2014 (hereafter referred to as the 'impugned order' or 'impugned orders') passed by the Competition Commission of India (hereafter 'CCI') under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter referred to as 'the Competition Act'). The impugned order dated 12th November, 2013 was passed pursuant to an information filed by Micromax Informatics Ltd. (hereafter 'Micromax') under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act and the same is the subject matter of W.P.(C) No. 464/2014 (hereafter also referred to as the 'Micromax Petition') and the impugned order dated 16th January, 2014 was passed pursuant to an information filed by Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. (hereafter 'Intex') and is the subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 1006 of 2014...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 80(1999)DLT348
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : '(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Major General in the Army Service Corps with effect from 1.5.97, when a vacancy arose therein; (b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiarari, calling for the records of Selections Boards held on 1.11.96 and 11.7.97 for promotion to the post of Major General in the Army Service Corps along with the nothings of the Ministry of defense and set aside the results of the Selection Board held on 1.11.96 and 11.7.97. (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to investigate/ inquire into the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent No. 4 and thereafter take appropriate disciplinary action against Respondent No. 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The present three petitions have been preferred by the petitioners KSL and Industries Ltd. (KSL), Jay Bharat Textile and Real Estate Ltd. (Jay Bharat) and Eskay K „n‟it (India) Ltd. (Eskay) under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to seek the following reliefs: (a) Stay of the letter dated September 14, 2010 issued by respondent, terminating the MOU dated November 14, 2008 entered into between each of the three petitioners and the respondent National Textile Corporation Ltd. (NTCL). (b) A direction to NTCL not to create any third party right/interest in, and not to dispose off any land machinery and/or any fixed assets of the 11 Textile Mills covered by each of the MOUs (5 covered by the MOU with KSL, 4 covered by the MOU with Eskay and 2 covered by the MOU with Jay Bharat) (c) Direct the NTCL to take all such steps that are necessary to preserve the value of the 11 textile Mills and to furnish a full and complete discharge of all i...
Tag this Judgment!