Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-23-2012
..... aspect whether „other advantage‟has to be read with „gaining pecuniary advantage‟in section 2(e) of mcoca, learned counsel for petitioner relied upon state of maharashtra v. jagain gagansingh nepali @ jagya and ors : crl. appeal no.20/2011 decided by full bench of bombay high court in august, 2011 wherein it has been observed as under:- “since the division bench ..... the organized crime can very well be proceeded against once sanction is obtained against them under section 23 (2) of mcoca. i am conscious in a case of jagain gagansingh nepali @ jagya and ors. (supra) the term “other advantage” used in section 2(e) of the maharashtra control of organized crime control of organized crime act, 1999 has been read as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-22-2012
..... on 04.08.1996 javed khan pointed out room no. 106 in satyam hotel, pahar ganj and informed the police that on 14.05.1996 he alongwith his associate sonu nepali stayed there and kept then in the evening handed over the bag with explosives to wazid; javed khan also identified rajan arora to whom he had paid the room rent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-22-2012
..... on 04.08.1996 javed khan pointed out room no. 106 in satyam hotel, pahar ganj and informed the police that on 14.05.1996 he alongwith his associate sonu nepali stayed there and kept then in the evening handed over the bag with explosives to wazid; javed khan also identified rajan arora to whom he had paid the room rent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-22-2012
..... on 04.08.1996 javed khan pointed out room no. 106 in satyam hotel, pahar ganj and informed the police that on 14.05.1996 he alongwith his associate sonu nepali stayed there and kept then in the evening handed over the bag with explosives to wazid; javed khan also identified rajan arora to whom he had paid the room rent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-22-2012
..... on 04.08.1996 javed khan pointed out room no. 106 in satyam hotel, pahar ganj and informed the police that on 14.05.1996 he alongwith his associate sonu nepali stayed there and kept then in the evening handed over the bag with explosives to wazid; javed khan also identified rajan arora to whom he had paid the room rent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-22-2012
..... on 04.08.1996 javed khan pointed out room no. 106 in satyam hotel, pahar ganj and informed the police that on 14.05.1996 he alongwith his associate sonu nepali stayed there and kept then in the evening handed over the bag with explosives to wazid; javed khan also identified rajan arora to whom he had paid the room rent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-02-2012
..... under section 308 ipc against other syndicate members.15. mr. ohri also referred to a full bench judgment of the maharashtra high court in state of maharashtra vs. jagan gagansingh nepali @ jagya & anr. in criminal appeal no. 20 and 407 of 2011 decided on 5th august, 2011 wherein it has been held as under:"34. it can, thus, clearly be seen .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-27-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa: 1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order passed by the lower authorities. 2. As per facts on record, the officer of directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted one truck enroute to Gorkhpur on 7.11.07, the same was found to be loaded with scrap of old and used fused battery of various sizes. Inasmuch as markings on some of the goods indicated that they were manufactured in Japan, Revenue entertained a view that the said goods were smuggled. 3. The statement of driver, Shri Rajesh Yadav, was recorded on 7.11.07 wherein, he inter alia deposed that the goods were belonging to one Shri Rajesh Babu, owner of M/s. Jai Ambey Traders, Nautanwa. He further stated that he had gone to the house of Shri Rajesh Babu for loading of the said goods along with his younger brother Shri Girijesh Babu. Inasmuch as the said goods were not found at the premises, he was told to wait and Shri Girijesh Babu went to Nepal and c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Mar-28-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. As per facts on record, the Customs officers intercepted one truck on 24.7.06, coming towards Faizabad. Four persons were found to be sitting in the vehicle. On being questioned, driver of the vehicle deposed that the zinc was loaded in the vehicle from a place beyond Adapur village at Indo-Nepal border. Search of the truck resulted in recovery of 162 bags of zinc. Revenue by entertaining the view that the said goods stand smuggled from Nepal, seized the same along with seizure of the truck. 2. During post seizure investigation, statement of various persons including the driver of the truck were recorded. Shri Rajendra Prasad, driver of the vehicle, deposed that he had loaded 162 bags of zinc in the vehicle from a place which is near Indo-Nepal boarder. He further stated that the said zinc was brought from Nepal by truck and the same were subsequently loaded in the truck. The statement of other cleaner of the truck was also to the same effect. 3. Further inqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on : Jan-25-2012
ORAL: M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant had filed OA No.3116/2010, which was decided on 20.09.2010 at the admission stage with liberty given to the applicant to file representation within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order claiming his seniority over the juniors and giving specific grounds on which he should be considered by the Respondents for re-engagement as casual labourer, absorption and regularization in appropriate post with the Respondents. Respondents were also directed to consider the said representation of the Applicant alongwith the copy of that OA as a supplementary representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Pursuant to the directions given by this Tribunal in the aforesaid terms respondents have passed the impugned order dated 14.03.2011 (Annexure A-1), which is under challenge in this OA and the applicant has prayed...
Tag this Judgment!