Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: October 08, 2013 + W.P.(CRL) 861/1997 U.S. PANDEY PRESIDENT OF W.A.S. ..... Petitioner Represented by: Petitioner in person versus UOI & ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Zubeda Begum, Advocate CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/1998 COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION In Re: UMA SHANKAR PANDEY ..... Contemnor Represented by: Contemnor in person CONT.CAS.(CRL) 17/2008 UMA SHANKAR PANDEY PRESIDENT OF W.A.S. Represented by: ..... Petitioner Petitioner in person versus UOI & ANR Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Zubeda Begum, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Sh.Uma Shankar Pandey is a person who believes that he has been let down by the society and the State and therefore in desperation he turns to the legal system for help. This Bench had the benefit of hearing him for about two hours on September 23, 2013, an hour and a half on September 25, 2013 and for two hours o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.6357/2012 & CM1696812 (Stay) 4th October, 2013 % SANDEEP KUMAR JINDAL Through: ......Petitioner Mr. M.M.Sudan, Adv. VERSUS UOI & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Ankur Chhiber, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who was working with the respondent no.2-Air Force Naval Housing Board.2. The issue which arises is that whether respondent no.2 is a State, or whether it is doing a public duty/public function, for a writ to be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. So far as the respondent no.2 not being a State is concerned, this issue is no longer res-integra and a Division Bench of this Court has in the case of Lt. Col. Ashok M. Chacko Retd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. in WP(C) 16699/2006 decided on 2.6.2010 squarely dealt with this issue and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6002/2013 and C.M.Nos.13222-25/2013 Reserved on :24. h September, 2013 Date of decision :30th September, 2013 % R.P. KHOSLA & ANR. Through : ..... Petitioners Petitioner no.2 in person. versus HON'BLE COMPANY LAW BOARD&ORS ..Respondents Through : None. CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT J.R. Midha, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 16 th September, 2013 passed by the Company Law Board in Company Petition No.110(ND)13.2. Respondents No.5 to 7 filed the Company Petition No.110(ND)13 which was listed for hearing before the Company Law Board on 12th September, 2013 at 2.30 PM. The petitioners are not parties in that petition.3. The petitioners, who had filed a caveat and applications for impleadment/intervention before the Company Law Board on 9th September, 2013, mentioned the matter before the Member (Judicial) of Company Law Board on 12th September, 2013 at 10.30 AM when it was observed that the caveators...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-09-2013
$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:9. h October, 2013 + CRL.M.C.2430/2013 DEVINDER PAL SINGH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Mohit Mathur, Ms. Daman Kohli and Mr. Sahil Bhattacharya, Advs. along with petitioner in person. versus STATE & ANR. Through ..... Respondent Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State with Inspector M.L.Meena, DIG/South Distt., P.S. Defence Colony. Mr. A. Mohanty, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. This is a petition u/s 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 moved by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 22.05.2013 whereby respondent no.2 was granted anticipatory bail. It is the case of the petitioner that accused/respondent no.2 sold a plot bearing No.J-262, New Alipore, Kolkata for a consideration of Rs. 60 lakhs and further took another Rs. 33 lakhs on the pretext of helping the complainant to obtain possession of the plot. When the possession was not deliver...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-11-2013
dev satya Digitally signed by dev satya DN: c=IN, o=delhi high court, ou=delhi high court, postalCode=110003, st=delhi, cn=dev satya Date:2013. 11.01 12:54:35 +05'30' $~17-18, 20-28, 30-85 & 125 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.No.338/2009 Date of decision :11. h October, 2013 % SATYA PRAKASH ..... Petitioner versus STATE ..... Respondent WITH Crl.Rev.P.Nos.289/2011, 457/2013, 286/2007, 585/2007, 692/2007, 740/2007, 744/2007, 67/2008, 613/2008, 646/2008, 678/2008, 20/2009, 83/2009, 348/2009, 373/2009, 412/2009, 440/2009, 442/2009, 355/2010, 432/2010, 695/2010, 14/2011, 281/2011, 395/2011, 430/2011, 513/2011, 35/2012, 63/2012, 69/2012, 96/2012, 108/2012, 121/2012, 137/2012, 185/2012, 200/2012, 236/2012, 313/2012, 387/2012, 424/2012, 463/2012, 492/2012, 556/2012, 590/2012, 608/2012, 651/2012, 669/2012, 684/2012, 279/2013, 407/2013, 414/2013, 454/2013, 470/2013 & 119/2012 Present :554. 2007, 581/2008, 321/2009, 257/2010, 339/2011, 67/2012, 155/2012, 402/2012, 606/2012...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-06-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on :24.10.2013 Judgment delivered on:06.11.2013 CRL.A. 1375/2010 RADHEY SHYAM Through: ..... Appellant Mr.R.N.Dubey, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 On the intervening night of 18-19.01.2006 at about 3.45 a.m. DD No.27-A was received in police station Tilak Nagar giving information through an unknown person that one lady was lying murdered in House No.WZ-12, Chaukhandi Village. This DD was entrusted to SI Jaipal Singh (PW-8) who along with constable Vinod (PW-16) reached the spot. 2 On the way on reaching the primary school Chaukhandi, a TSR was noted coming from the opposite side; on the signal given by the TSR driver PW-8 stopped his vehicle, Joginder (PW-1) was driving the said TSR. The appellant Radhey Shaym was sitting in this TSR. PW-1 informed the police officials that Radhey Shyam w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-19-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :21. t October, 2013 DECIDED ON :19. h November, 2013 + CRL.A. 473/2000 ANIL TANEJA & ANR. ..... Appellants Through : Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr.Advocate with Mr.M.L.Yadav, Mr.Lokesh Chandra & Mr.M.Shamikh, Advocates. VERSUS STATE OF DELHI Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Anil Taneja (A-1) and Madan Lal (A-2) challenge their conviction in case FIR No.256/1998 registered at PS Moti Nagar in Sessions Case No.112/1998. By a judgment dated 17th July, 2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judgment, they were held guilty under Sections 304 and 323 IPC respectively. A-1, in addition, was convicted under Section 27 Arms Act. By an order dated 19.07.2000, A-1 was awarded various prison terms with fine while A-2 was released on probation. The prosecution case emerged out of the record is as under:- 2. On 26.06.1998 at about 12.30 a.m. at shop No.26-27, Subzi Market, Moti Nagar, an alte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-19-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:10.10.2013 Judgment delivered on:19.11.2013 DEATH SENTENCE REF. 6/2010 STATE ..... Petitioner Through Ms.Richa Kapoor, APP. + versus MUKESH KUMAR Through + CRL.A. 96/2011 MUKESH KUMAR Through ..... Respondent Mr.Manu Sharma, Mr.Abhir Datt and Mr.Ali Jethhmalani, Advocates. ..... Appellant Mr.Manu Sharma, Mr.Abhir Datt and Mr.Ali Jethhmalani, Advocates. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms.Richa Kapoor, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 Sunita (PW-10) the mother of the victim Neha had made a complaint in Police Station Okhla Industrial Area on 12.06.2005 at about 01:30 PM which was to the effect that her daughter aged three years named Neha had been taken away by the appellant Mukesh on the pretext of giving her toffee; this was in the morning at 08:30 AM; since then Neha had not returned and inspite of frantic efforts made by her and her husband to s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-25-2013
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :11. 11.2013 Judgment delivered on :25.11.2013 CRL.A. 743/2009 PREM CHAND Through versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through ..... Appellant Mr. Rajesh Khanna, Adv. ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 08.07.2009 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC as also under Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Arm Act. He had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life specifically stating that the appellant shall not be considered for parole till he has served twenty years of incarceration. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. No separate sentence had been passed under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2 The case of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-03-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 238/2002 TAPAS Judgment delivered on: December 03, 2013 ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sumit Verma, Advocate versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.1. By this appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order on sentence dated 22.08.2001 and 01.09.2001, respectively, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, has convicted the appellant for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life together with imposition of fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two days.2...
Tag this Judgment!