Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-09-2013
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 926/2010 Decided on:9. h April, 2013 MOHD. ISSA @ RAJ Through ..... Appellant Mr. Ajay Verma, Mr. Shiv Kumar Dwivedi, Mr. Y. Bhattacharya, Advs. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP with SI Satish Rana, PS Spl. Cell, Lodhi Colony CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL) 1. The present appeal is directed against judgment dated 22nd October, 2009 convicting the Appellant for offences under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 (in short the ES Act) read with Section 18 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1957 (in short the UAP Act) besides Section 120B IPC. The Appellant has also challenged the order on sentence dated 26th October, 2009 whereby the following sentences have been awarded to the Appellant. (i) Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 1 year under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-18-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Crl.A.No.1197 o18. 04.2013 National Investigation Agency, NIA, Hyderabad. Devendra Gupta and another HEAD NOTE: !Spl. Public Prosecutor for NIA::Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 : Sri N.Ramachander Rao, representing Sri M.Vijaya Kanth and Sri Venugopal Julakanti. Cases referred:1. (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1480=2009 11 SCC 54.2 (2004) SCC (Cri) 829= (2004) 3 SCC 44.3 (2004) 9 SCC 58.4 (2004) 7 SCC 52.5 (2002) 3 SCC 59.6 (2008) 16 SCC 75.7 (2008) 13 SCC 58.8 (2001) 6 SCC 33.9 (1996) 2 SCC 61.10 (2005) 3 SCC 14.11 (2012) 9 SCC 44.12 Crl.A.No.29 of 2011, dt.July 27, 2011 (unreported1990. 1 SCC 39.14 (1988) 2 SCC 27.15 Unreported Judgment in Crl.A.No.824 of 2012, dt.21.12.2012. 16 AIR 197.SC 8.17 AIR 199.SC 198.18 AIR 201.SC 83.JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao) This is an appeal filed u/S.21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 by the National I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-01-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN MONDAY,THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2013 10TH ASHADHA, 1935 OP (CAT).No. 568 of 2013 (Z) ---------------------------------------- [O.A.NO.684/2012 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 01 01-2013] ........ PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. S.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (S.C.B), LAVANYA, CHAVADINADA, VENGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 523.2. K.K.RAJAN, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (S.C.B), KAILASAM, GURUDEV NAGAR, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM-691 017. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NEW DELHI - 3.2. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, C.G.O COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-3.3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), C.B.I HEAD QUARTERS, 5-B, 7TH FLOO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on : Jul-29-2013
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.342/2003 Lehri Bai Vs. Bherulal Date of Order :29. 07.2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr. K.C. Samdariya, for the petitioner. Mr. Alkesh Agarwal, for the respondent. BY THE COURT : REPORTABLE This revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 20.2.2003 passed by the executing court, whereby objections filed by the petitioner under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC have been dismissed. Brief facts of the case may be noticed thus : the respondent-decree-holder filed Civil Original Suit No.164/1980 on 16.10.1980 seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the suit premises and for arrears of rent. The suit was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent, denial of title and reasonable and bonafide necessity under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 ('the Act of 1950'). The suit was set ex-parte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-11-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:25. h September, 2013 Date of Decision:11. h October, 2013 % + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1221/2012 RAJU ..... Appellant Mr.Avninder Singh, Advocate. Through: versus STATE ..... Respondent Mr.Sanjay Lao, APP for the State. Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH VED PRAKASH VAISH, J:1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 16th July, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03 (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). Vide order on sentence dated 17.07.2012, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.02.2008 on receipt of DD No.11A a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-25-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) No.574/2010 Reserved on:3. d September, 2013 Decided on:25. h October, 2013 % M/S ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Amit Sethi and Mr. Mukesh Ranjan, Advocates. versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Defendant Through: Mr. J.S. Bhasin, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, and Ms. Rashmi Priya, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 On 5th March, 2013 issues were framed by this Court wherein Issue No.4, which reads as under, was treated as a preliminary issue. 4.2. Whether the present suit is barred under the Delhi Rent Control Act?. (OPD) The objection of the Defendant is that the Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking decree of possession, recovery of a sum of Rs. 1.20 crores, damages and cost of the suit in respect of property situated at Atma Ram Mansion, Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The Defendant has been a tenant in the building since 14th May, 1948 pursuant to Rent Deed executed between th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-16-2013
* + THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI C.S. (O.S.) No.1633/1983 Date of Decision:16. 12.2013 .Plaintiff RAMA ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. Through: Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Mr. Ramesh Vats, Advs for the plaintiff Versus D.D.A./M.C.D. (SLUM WING) Through: ....Defendant Dr. K.S Sidhu, Sr. Adv, with Ms. Maldeep Singh, Adv for the defendant/DDA CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 60,79,875/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. A brief summary of the facts leading to the instant suit is as follows:2. Delhi Development Authority (DDA), the defendant, held a public auction on March 12, 1982, for sale of a commercial plot admeasuring 351 sq. yds at No.9, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi (suit property). Rama Associates, the plaintiff participated in the auction and being the highest bidder at Rs. 186 lakhs, its bid was accepted on March 20, 1982.In accordance with t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-21-2013
P. Sathasivam, J.1) This appeal and the connected matters have been directed against thefinal orders and judgments of conviction and sentence passed on variousdates by the Presiding Officer of the Designated Court under Terrorist andDisruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short 'the TADA') forBombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in BBC No. 1 of 1993. These appealshave been filed under Section 19 of the TADA by the accused against theirconviction and sentence and by the CBI for confirmation of the deathsentence and against the acquittal of some of the accused persons.2) Brief facts:The case of the prosecution is as follows:(a) Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was demolished on 06.12.1992. After itsdemolition, violence broke out throughout the country. In order to takerevenge of the said demolition, Tiger Memon (AA) and Dawood Ibrahim, aresident of Dubai, formulated a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act in thecity of Bombay. In pursuance of the said object, Dawood Ibra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-21-2013
APPEALS RELATING TO DEATH SENTENCE PART-1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1728 of 2007 Yakub Abdul Razak Memon .... Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI , Bombay . Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No.609-610 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.628-629 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.637-638 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.365 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.864-865 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.897 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.941-942 of 2008 AND Death Reference Case No.1 of 2011 ******** REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 2 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1728 OF 200.Yakub Abdul Razak Memon .... Appellant (s) Versus State of Maharashtra thr., CBI, Bombay .... Respondent(s) With Batch JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J.1) This appeal and the connected matters have been directed against the final orders and judgments of conviction and sentence passed on various dates by the Presiding Offic...
Tag this Judgment!