Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Jul-12-2013
The petitioner has come up before this court against the order of dismissal passed by the Summary Court Martial dated 13.08.2011. It appears that the petitioner had filed a statutory complaint against this order before the Chief of Army Staff under section 164 (2) of the Army Act. The statutory complaint has been disposed of by the Army Chief of Staff rejecting the petition. However, the sentence of dismissal has been converted into an order of discharge. Said order has been produced by the learned counsel for the respondent today. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the petition certain facts need to be noted herein. 2. The petitioner was enrolled on 27.07.2002 as Sepoy in 64 Assault Engineer regiment, Indian Army and was posted at different places. He was attached to head quarter central command, Lucknow as draftsman. It appears that Patna Police got information that Mr. Sudhanshu Sudhakar , who had been dismissed from the Army, was proceeding to Nepal with secret info...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-30-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :22. 05.2013 Decided on :30. 05.2013 + W.P.(C)3156/2013 DILEEP KUMAR SINGH BISHT ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Anil Mittal, Advocate VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Himanshu Bajaj and Mr.Aditya Malhotra, Advocates for UOI/R-1, R-4 and R-5 Mr.Narendra Mann, Advocate for R2/CBI CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.1. By the present public interest litigation, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus for directions to respondent No.2 CBI to hold time-bound inquiry against respondent No.3 Sh. Subhash Kumar under the direct supervision of this Court and to investigate the allegations against him.2. The petitioner claims to be a citizen of India and a domicile of Uttarakhand. He is also an Ex-Corporator of the Lucknow Nagar Nigam. He states that the present writ has been filed on the basis of information received by him from various documen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-12-2013
$~22. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 890/2012 & CM 2144/2013. % Judgment dated 12.02.2013 TARUN GUPTA Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.Nagmani Roy, Adv. versus DR. D. K. SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Rishan Kaushik, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. By the present contempt petition, filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the petitioner alleges willful disobedience of the order passed by a Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 6635/2012 on 22.11.2012.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents, who are the Doctors at AIIMS hospital, have failed to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 22.11.2012. Counsel further submits that in terms of the directions passed in W.P.(C) 6635/2012 on 22.11.2012, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Superintendent of respondent no.2 on the scheduled date and time with a copy of the said order, however, instead ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-22-2013
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :22. 07.2013 + CS(OS) 1608/2010 WUXE ZHANG & ANR Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Advocate with Mr. Ankur Sangal, Advocate versus SUBHASH AGARWAL & ANR Through: NEMO ..... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.(ORAL) The plaintiff has filed the present suit to seek the reliefs of injunction, passing of, copyright infringement, rendition of accounts, delivery up and damages against the defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that it is the prior user and adopter of the trademark GFIVE, which has been adopted by the plaintiff since 01.09.2008. The defendant has been using the mark, XFIVE which is phonetically, visually similar and deceptively similar to the plaintiffs mark, GFIVE. The user of the defendant is in the same class of goods i.e. class 35 in which plaintiffs mark is registered. The plaintiff and the defendants are using their respective marks in respect of mobile pho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-17-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment:17.9.2013 + CRL.A. 1367/2011 MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS ..... Appellants Through: Mr.Sanjay Suri, Rishabh Relan and Mr. Dinesh Malik, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J (oral) 1 On the intervening night of 28-29.06.2007 at about midnight in a gali opposite Raj STD, Dhirpur village, Delhi the four appellants before this Court namely Manoj, Mahender, Ravinder (presently lodged in judicial custody) and Ritu (since released on bail) in furtherance of their common intention had committed the murder of deceased Manish @ Guddu. Version of the prosecution was unfolded in the testimony of the eye-witness Rakhi (PW-11). The role attributed to appellant Manoj was that he had caused stab injuries to the deceased while he was caught hold of by Mahender and Ravinder; Rakhi had exhorted the co-accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-31-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :13. h MAY, 2013 DECIDED ON :31. t MAY, 2013 + CRL.A. 1037/2012 & CRL.M.B.Nos.285/2013 & 1633/2012 BAIJ NATH MITTAL Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Rebecca M.John, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Kushdeep Gaur & Mr.Harsh Bora, Advocates. versus STATE THR.C.B.I. Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Spl.P.P. AND + CRL.A. 1090/2012 & CRL.M.B.1701/2012 MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Vishal Gosain, Advocate with Mr.Kushdeep Gaur & Mr.Harsh Bora, Advocates. versus STATE THR.CBI Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Spl.P.P. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.CRL.M.B.Nos.285/2013 & 1633/2012 in CRL.A.1037/2012 & CRL.M.B.1701/2012 in CRL.A.1090/2012 1. The appellants- Baij Nath Mittal and Mukesh Kumar Gupta seek suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. I have heard the counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.P.P. Apparently, allegations against the appellants are very serious whereby they allegedly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-31-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :13. h MAY, 2013 DECIDED ON :31. t MAY, 2013 + CRL.A. 1037/2012 & CRL.M.B.Nos.285/2013 & 1633/2012 BAIJ NATH MITTAL Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Rebecca M.John, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Kushdeep Gaur & Mr.Harsh Bora, Advocates. versus STATE THR.C.B.I. Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Spl.P.P. AND + CRL.A. 1090/2012 & CRL.M.B.1701/2012 MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Vishal Gosain, Advocate with Mr.Kushdeep Gaur & Mr.Harsh Bora, Advocates. versus STATE THR.CBI Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Spl.P.P. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.CRL.M.B.Nos.285/2013 & 1633/2012 in CRL.A.1037/2012 & CRL.M.B.1701/2012 in CRL.A.1090/2012 1. The appellants- Baij Nath Mittal and Mukesh Kumar Gupta seek suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. I have heard the counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.P.P. Apparently, allegations against the appellants are very serious whereby they allegedly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-30-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 815/2011 Reserved on:21. t March, 2013 Decided on:30. h May, 2013 % TAPAN KUMAR MAJHI Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Saahila Lamba, Adv. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP with SI Satender Kumar, PS Karol Bagh. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 By this appeal the Appellant challenges the judgment dated 21st January, 2011 convicting the Appellant for offence under Section 304 IPC and the order on sentence dated 22nd January, 2011 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the Appellant was in the business of jewellery making and the deceased was the nephew of the Appellant. The deceased was residing in a village of West Bengal with his father and was sent with the Appellant in the month of November to lear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-07-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:31. 01.2013 Judgment pronounced on:07. 03.2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1200/2011 DHARMENDER KUMAR PAL Through: Ms.Anu Narula, Advocate. .. Appellant Versus STATE .. Respondent Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. Dharmender Kumar Pal impugns his conviction under Sections 302 and 392/397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) vide judgment dated 07.02.2011. By order dated 11.02.2011, the appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 392/397 IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment of two months. For the offence under Section 302 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for nine months. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-26-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:10. 04.2013 Judgment pronounced on:26. 04.2013 CRL.A. 1470/2011 VINOD Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP versus STATE CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.07.2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) for committing the murder of deceased Sanjay on 30.07.2007 by inflicting multiple stabs injuries. By order of sentence dated 15.07.2011, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of `2000/- has also been imposed. In default of payment of fine, the appellant is to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.2. We note that co-accused Kushal was declared juvenile by the Sessions Court vide order dated 0...
Tag this Judgment!