Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-13-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:13. 02.2013 CEAC 16 2012 WIPRO LIMITED ..... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Devnath, Mr Aditya Bhattacharya, Mr Abhishek Anand & Mr Bhuvnesh Satijha, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Satish Kr. Senior Standing Counsel for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT R.V. EASWAR, J This is an appeal by Wipro Ltd., which was formerly known as Wipro BPO Solutions. It was at the material time engaged in the rendering of IT-enabled services such as technical support services, backoffice services, customer-care services etc. to its various clients all of whom were situated outside India, i.e., in UK, USA and Australia.2. The appeal arises out of the order passed by the Central Excise & Service CEAC 16 2012 Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in order ST/593/2011(PB) on 05.10.2011, in Appeal No. ST/66/2008. On 12....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-16-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A.1433/2010 Prakash Kumar @ Pakka Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Ajay M. Lal, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP AND + CRL.A. 1194/2010 Jai Kishan @ Jacky Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP AND + CRL.A. 1432/2010 Suraj Kumar Thakur Through: ..... Appellant Mr. G.S. Sharma, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP Date of Decision: May 16, 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. These appeals have been preferred under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 assailing the order dated 26th August, 2010 vide which the appellants Prakash Kumar @ Pakka, Suraj Kumar Thakur and Jai Kishan @ Jacky were held guilty for offences under Section 302/34 IPC while co-accused Prakash Raj @ Pintu was acquitted giving him benefit of doubt. Vide order d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-01-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:07.01.2013 Judgment pronounced on:01.02.2013 CRL.A. 665/2009 MEHBOOB AHMED Through: ..... Appellant Mr. S.K.Sethi, Advocate. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP. versus STATE CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. By the impugned judgment, dated 18.05.2009, the appellant Mehboob Ahmed has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short), for the murder of Rumana Praveen on 30.12.2005 in their residence, at H.No. F-277 Gali No.14 Khajuri Khas, Delhi. The appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in a default of which, he is to undergo simple imprisonment, for six months.2. The prosecution case is that on 30.12.2005, at around 10 a.m., the appellant, his step daughter- the deceased and Rubina Praveen (PW1), were present in his residence. Nasim Fatima (PW10), the mother of the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. Appeal No. 671/2009 Reserved on:15. h February, 2013 Date of Decision:24. h May, 2013 % PHOOL CHAND MAURYA AND ORS. ....Appellant Through Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate for appellant Nos.1 and 3. Mr. Ajay Verma and Mr. Shiv Kumar Dwedi, Advocates for appellant No.2. Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Lao and Ms. Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutors. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SANJIV KHANNA, J: The appellants Phool Chand Maurya, Mohan Lal and Yogesh Kumar Maurya impugn common judgment against them by the Trial Court, dated 21st April, 2009 in FIR No. 155 of 2005, under Section 302/323/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder of Kuldeep and causing injury to his family members Raju and Dolly. By Order of Sentence dated 27th April, 2009 for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, they have been sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Rs 500/each, in default of which they s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 837/2010 BABU Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Imran Ahmed, Advocate. versus STATE Through: % ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP. Date of Decision: May 29, 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. Subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the judgment dated 15.12.2009 in Sessions Case No.26/2009 arising out of FIR No.170/2004, Police Station Khajuri Khas, Delhi. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. He was further sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default 15 days rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.2. The case of the prosecution emanates from the fact ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No.83/2007 Date of decision :8. h March, 2013 % VED PARKASH KHARBANDA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Katyal and Mr. S.S. Katyal, Advs. versus VIMAL BINDAL Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. R.N. Oberoi, Ms. Ruchi Jain and Mr. Sarfaraz Ahmad, Advs. CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT 1 The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree for specific performance passed by the learned Trial Court. The appellant was the defendant and respondent was the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the appellant and the respondent shall be referred to as per their ranks in the plaint as the defendant and plaintiff respectively.2. Plaintiffs case The plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant on 21st August, 1997. The case set-up by the plaintiff in the plaint is as under:2.1 RFA No.83/2007 agreement with the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-20-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 261/2003 Reserved on:14. h March, 2013 Decided on:20. h May, 2013 % K.LAL Through ..... Appellant Mr. Pramod Kr. Dubey, Mr. Amit Singh Rathore, Mr. Hemant Shah, Mr. Rohit Gupta, Mr. Suksham Chauhan, Mr. Shiv Chopra, Mr. Sourabh, Advs. versus C.B.I. Through ..... Respondent Mr. P.K. Sharma, SC with Mr. A.K.Singh, Adv. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 By the present appeal the Appellant impugns the judgment dated 26th April, 2003 convicting the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 28th April, 2003 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that malafide prosecution has been lodged against the Appellant to wreck vengeance as the App...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-07-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :8. h November, 2012 DECIDED ON :7. h February, 2013 + CRL.A.886/2011 SURENDER Through : ....Appellant Mr.D.B.Goswami, Advocate with Mr.S.Gaurav Sasan, Advocate. versus STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) .Respondent Through : Mr.Sanjay Lao & Ms.Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.02.2011 and order on sentence dated 06.04.2011 in Sessions Case No.312/2009 arising out of FIR No.20/2005 PS Vasant Vihar by which the appellant- Surender was convicted for committing offences punishable under Section 498A/302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine.2. On 16.01.2005 around 05.35 P.M., Meenakshi (appellants wife) was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital. On the basis of Daily Diary (DD) No.24A investigation was set into motion and assigned to SI Ram Avtar who with Const.Ganga Saran re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-08-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:19. 03.2013 Judgment pronounced on:08. 05.2013 1. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.496/2011 ASHISH @ DANGER Through: Mr. Sumeet (DHCLSC). ..... Appellant Verma, Advocate versus STATE Through:2. ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1076/2010 NAZIM Through: Ms. Saahila (DHCLSC). ..... Appellant Lamba, Advocate versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. Ashish and Nazim have preferred these appeals against their conviction by the impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 30.03.2010 under Sections 302/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder of Vinod. By the order of sentence dated 31.03.2010, the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 and with fine of `5,000/-. In case of default for payment of fine o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-05-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on: % + 30.01.2013 05.02.2013 W.P.(C.) No. 12730/2005 and C.M. Nos. 9505/2005, 13315/2005 & 12222/2007 ABC Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Jayshree Satpute, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate along with S.I. in person, for respondent No.1. Mr. A.J.Bhambhani & Mr. Apurv, Advocates for respondent No.2. Mr. S. D. Salwan, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner herein on behalf of her daughter (minor at the time of filing of the present petition) as her mother and next friend, alleging violation of the right to privacy and confidentiality of her daughter under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and other legal rights and seeking appropriate relief in respect thereof.2. The cau...
Tag this Judgment!