Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2004IAD(Delhi)637; 108(2003)DLT175
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Rule. With the consent of parties the matter is taken up for hearing today. 2. The petitioners are seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to issue sale permission in favor of the petitioner no.1 in respect of the property bearing No.J-7, B.K. Dutt Colony, New Delhi-110003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said property') 3. This property which is a lease-hold property was initially owned by one Mr Chunni Lal Nepali. Upon his demise, it came to be owned by his son Shri Bal Krishan Nepali, who is respondent no.2 herein. Despite service, nobody has entered appearance on behalf of respondent no.2. 4. On 17.07.1989, an agreement to sell was entered into by and between the said Shri Bal Krishan Nepali and the petitioner No.1's husband (Sh. H.S. Khurmi). On 03.10.1989, other documents, such as Special Power of Attorney, General Power of Attorney and Will, etc. were executed. Since this was a lease-hold property, before the sale coul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996(39)DRJ353
Arun Kumar, J. (1) 'DIE appellant was convicted for the offences under sections 452, 302 I.P.C. and under section 27 of the Arms Act for the murder of a young girl named Kavita by the Addl.Scssions Judge, Delhi vide impugned judgment dated 22nd April 1992. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code For the offences under section 452 Indian Penal Code and section 27 Arms Act, he was sentenced to five years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500.00 each.(2) The case of the prosecution is based on a statement of Laxmi, mother of the deceased girl recorded on 8th December 1987. According to the said statement Laxmi was sitting on the floor in the varandah of her house and her daughter Kavita aged about 15/16 years was also lying there on a cot. Babu @ Nepali (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) had been residing in her neighbourhood. He used to tease her daughter Kavita. On being rebuked he gave up teasing Kavita ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :5. h DECEMBER, 2016 DECIDED ON :3. d MARCH, 2017 SETE NEPALI CRL.A.432/2013 Through : Ms.Sunita Arora, Advocate. ..... Appellant B.N.MEENA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG VERSUS Through : Mr.P.C.Aggarwal, Advocate. ..... Respondent + S.P.GARG, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 31.10.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.01/03/2010 by which the appellant Sete Nepali @ Sarki was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 20(c) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (In short NDPS Act). By an order dated 19.11.2012, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine `1 lac.2. Shorn of necessary details, the prosecution case was that on 25.11.2009 at about 12.45 p.m. the appellant was intercepted by the Custom Officers at the office of Himalyan Courier Company at House No.193, Shop No.17, New Camp, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi-54 and was found in possession of 20.774 k...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003(26)PTC377(Del); 2004(1)RAJ377
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking direction against first respondent namely, Commissioner of Customs, Hand Container Depot, Tuglakabad, New Delhi to release its consignment and to permit the petitioner to remove the said consignment from customs without let or hindrance. The direction is also sought against first respondent to compensate the petitioner all the moneys paid by the petitioner towards demurrages or ground rent to NLS Agency (India) Pvt. Ltd., and/or to the Container Corporation of India and/or any other person for any other charges whatsoever arising from the delay in releasing the consignment to the petitioner. 2. As would be clear from the prayer clause, the petitioner has imported certain goods, but as the respondent No. 1 did not clear the same this petition has been filed with aforesaid prayers. The facts which emerge from the petition and counter-affidavits of the respondents may be recapitulated. 3. The petitioner is a Private Limited...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes ORDERIntroduction1. Stating that he is a citizen of India and a resident of Nandu Gaon, Harrboty, Poklok, Kamrang, South Sikkim and an educated farmer, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the Union of Indian in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to decide a complaint made by him on 9th June 2008 against Respondent No. 3, Shri Pawan Kumar Chamling, who is at present the Chief Minister of Sikkim.2. Although a further prayer is for a declaration that Respondent No. 3 "has ceased to be a citizen of India and disqualified to hold any constitutional post", Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, at the outset stated that the Petitioner does not press that prayer. He confines his prayer to a direction to the MHA to decide his complaint dated 9th June 2008.3. Earli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~20 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:23. d May, 2018 CM(M) 1183/2017 and CM383672017 RAMJI LAL & ANR ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Arvind Nagar and Mr. Vipin Chaudhary, Advocates versus NAND KISHORE & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ankit Gupta and Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocates for R-1 & 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The process of mediation is one of the several statutorily recognized modes of settlement of disputes available as alternative to adjudicatory process in the court. Court annexed mediation process is now an established institution receiving recognition for the invaluable services thereby provided, the hallmark whereof is that it is an exercise in which the litigants, aided and assisted by their respective counsel and a neutral mediator, participate of their own volition with the objective of searching for common grounds that would throw up solutions to the vexed problem they face, the solutions being such as to wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :8. h MAY, 2017 DECIDED ON :22. d MAY, 2017 RAM SINGH STATE CRL.A. 414/2015 Through : Mr.S.K.Sethi with Ms.Dolly Sharma, ..... Appellant Advocates. versus Through : Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG + S.P.GARG, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 22.12.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.42/2013 arising out of FIR No.43/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh by which the appellant Ram Singh was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Section 10 POCSO Act and Section 342 IPC. By an order dated 23.12.2014, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine `5,000/- under Section 10 POCSO Act and RI for one year under Section 342 IPC. The sentences were to operate concurrently.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is projected in the charge- sheet was that on 26.01.2013 at around 08.30 a.m. the appellant sexually assaulted the victim X (chan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2009(93)DRJ813
J.M. Malik, J.1. This order shall decide the above said two appeals. Both the appellants are Nationals of Nepal. They were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 14 years each under Sections 29 and 21 respectively of NDPS Act and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each for each of the offences separately, failing which they were to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under each Section i.e. 29 and 21 of NDPS Act. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further held that both the sentences would run concurrently and the appellants were given the benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C.2. The facts of the prosecution case are these. On the night falling between 28/29.01.2000, eleven Nepali Nationals were traveling to Bangkok by different flights at I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi. They were arrested. They admitted having swallowed capsules filled with Heroin. Few capsules were recovered from them at the spot and few were recovered as a result of evacuation in R.M.L. Hospital. O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:31. t July, 2013 Pronounced on:20. h September, 2013 + CRL.A.976/2012 SALIM @ NAJU Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate versus STATE Through : + ..... Respondent Ms.Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor CRL.A.802/2013 RAJ KUMAR @ KHUJJAR Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.1. These two appeals arise out of judgment dated 27.02.2012 and order on sentence dated 14.03.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.206/2009 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code(IPC) and under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of `5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:31. t July, 2013 Pronounced on:20. h September, 2013 + CRL.A.976/2012 SALIM @ NAJU Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate versus STATE Through : + ..... Respondent Ms.Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor CRL.A.802/2013 RAJ KUMAR @ KHUJJAR Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.1. These two appeals arise out of judgment dated 27.02.2012 and order on sentence dated 14.03.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.206/2009 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code(IPC) and under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of `5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IP...
Tag this Judgment!