Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:04. h March, 2015 + CRL .M.C.725/2015 & Crl. MA27652015 SHIV KUMAR YADAV Through: ..... Petitioner Mr D.K. Mishra, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for State along with Insp. Anil Dureja, Insp. Devender Rathi, SI Sandeep and SI Renu, PS Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. % CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 18th February, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.02/2015 vide FIR No.1291/2014 u/s 376/323/506 IPC registered with Police Station Sarai Rohilla vide which the prayer of the petitioner for recalling the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination was declined.2. FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of statement made by prosecutrix X wherein s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :25. 09.2013 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and The Honourable Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH Original Side Appeal No.40 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009 Urooj Ahmed, Lords Enterprises(India). 1620-21, Main Bazaar, Lal Kuan, Opp. To Shama Laboratories, Delhi-110 006. ... Appellant -vs- 1.Preethi Kitchen Appliances Private Limited, having its registered office at Technopolis Knowledge Park, Mahakali Caves Road, Chakala, Andheri Post, Mumbai-400 093. 2.Proprietor, Chandra Stores, 43-44, Trunk Road, Porur, Chennai-600 016. (R1 substituted vide order of Court dated 22.2.2012 made in M.P.1/12 in OSA.40/2009) ... Respondents Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 11 of the O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 19.01.2009 made in Application No.5533 of 2008 in C.S.No.949 of 2008. For appellant : Mr.V.P.Raman For respondents : Mr.Arunkarthik Mohan for M/s Sathish Parasaran JUDGMENT M.M.SU...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:10. 10.2019 + W.P.(C) 2079/2018 SHRI SAURABH TRIPATHY versus ........ Petitioner COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. ....... RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner: Mr Gourab Banerji, Senior Advocate with Mr Saurav Agrawal, Mr Anirudha Agarwala, Mr Anshuman Chowdhury, Ms Raka Chatterjee and Mr S.P. Mukherjee, Advocates. For the... RESPONDENTS: Ms Purnima Singh and Ms Shibani Khuntia, Advocates for R-1. Mr Rajshekhar Rao, Mr Ram Kumar, Mr Vinayak Mehrotra and Mr Dhruv Dikshit, Advocates for R-2. CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 16.02.2017 passed by the Competition Commission of India (hereafter CCI) in Case No.63/2014, whereby CCI had concluded that a case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter the Act) was established against respondent no.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No.970 OF2016RAVINDER NATH AGARWAL PETITIONER Versus YOGENDER NATH AGARWAL & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No.2779 OF2019JUDGMENT1 While Transfer Petition (C) No.970 of 2016 is for the transfer of a suit for partition, pending on the file of the Additional District Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi to a Court of competent jurisdiction in the District of Nainital, Uttarakhand, Transfer Petition (C) No.2779 of 2019 is for the transfer of a testamentary case pending on the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital to the District 2 Court at Saket, New Delhi.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.3. One Shri Badri Nath Agarwal, who was ordinarily a resident of Village Bithoriya No.1, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand, died on 07.05.2011, at the ripe old age of 91 years, leaving behind him surviving, five sons and a daughter. They wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 W.P. No.7083/2013 M/s Digicable Network India Pvt. Ltd. Union of India & others 15.5.2013 Shri Brian D'Silva, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri Abhijeet Awasthy, Counsel for petitioner. Shri R.S.Siddiqui, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for respondents No.1 & 6. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, GA for respondents No.2 to 5. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Counsel for intervener M/s Siti Cable Network Ltd. Shri Anil Khare, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Priyankush Jain for intervener Indian Broadcasting Foundation. Shri Siddiqui submits that he has filed reply in W.P.No.5323/2013 and is adopting the return filed in the same case. He can do this by filing an appropriate application alongwith return and supplying copy of it to the petitioner. This be done within a period of one week from today. I.A.No.6482/2013 filed by intervener M/s Siti Cable Network Ltd. for vacation of ad interim writ Parties are heard on this application Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Union of India has not filed return t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - NC:2024. KHC:24778 WP No.36471 of 2018 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE2D DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.36471 OF2018(LB-BMP) BETWEEN: RUPA. B. P. AGED ABOUT44YEARS W/O R MOHAN RAM BHOJI NO.38/S, NEW NO.06 4TH BLOCK6H MAIN RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010 PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA V R.,ADVOCATE) AND:1. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER RAJAJINAGARA, BBMP WARD NO.108 SRI RAMAMANDIRA WARD BENGALURU-560 010.2. THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER CORPORATION BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 .RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K N PUTTEGOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 &R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDAI PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED265.2018 BY R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT R-1 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIOENR IN THE REVENUE RECORDS RELATING THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER AS REFERRED IN ANNEXURE -A AND ETC.-. 2 - NC:2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1995)82CompCas688
1. This application under Sections 111(4) and 111(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has been filed by Dr.Jitendra Nath Saha and Smt. Bithika Sana (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioners") for rectification of the register of members of respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the company") by declaration of certain allotment of shares as invalid and direction to distribute the resultant shares in accordance with law. This application was heard on July 27, 28, 1992, by a Bench constituted by Order No. 11/2/92-CLB(PB), dated June 5, 9, 1992, read with corrigendum dated July 15, 1992, of the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as "CLB").2. The third respondent is a private limited company incorporated on September 20, 1976, under the Act. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Shri Shyamal Mondal and Smt. Mira Mondal, who are husband and wife are the subscribers to the memorandum of association and also the first directors of the company. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.219 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.8971 of 2012) Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai .... Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat & Anr. .... Respondent(s) 2 JUDGMENT P.Sathasivam,J.1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.09.2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No.2755 of 2012 whereby the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein. 3) Brief facts: a) The vehicle of the appellant, Eicher Truck, was seized by the police, which was found to be transporting 28 buffalo calves. The First Information Report (in short FIR) was registered against the appellant on 02.08.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC), Sections 184, 177 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short M.V. Act), Sections 5, 6, 8 and 10 of the Guj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1515-1516 OF2019[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 19-20 of 2019]. SATISH UKEY VERSUS APPELLANT(S) DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS AND ANR. RESPONDENT(S) RANJAN GOGOI, CJI JUDGMENT1 2. Leave granted. The appellant Satish Ukey is a practicing Advocate of the Bombay High Court. The first respondent is an elected member of the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly and is presently holding the post of Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra. 2 3. The appellant had filed a criminal complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur for registration of a case against the first respondent under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Act). The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur by order dated 7th September, 2015 dismissed the complaint. In Revision, the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur remand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 3847/2016 Reserved on:24. h October, 2016 Decided on:27. h October, 2016 GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA ........ Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Madhav Khurana, Mr. Amrit, Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Mr. Utkarsh Saxena, Advs. versus CBI ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Ms. Hiral Gupta, Mr. Harinder Bains, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 By the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th April, 2016 passed by the Special Judge in case titled as CBI Vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Ors. in RC No.219/2013/E/0006 directing framing of charge against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 120- B/409/420 IPC and Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the PC Act).2. When the matter came...
Tag this Judgment!