Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: December 10, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: December 11,2014 + CRL.A. 234/2013 SHISH RAM Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Ravi Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellant with appellant in J.C. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Insp.Mahesh Kumar, PS S.B.Dairy Complainant Smt.Preeti Sharma in person with Mr.Ajay Garg, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. There are seven deadly sins : wrath, avarice, sloth, pride, lust, envy and drunkenness. But in the modern society we find that some of them have contrived to pass themselves off as virtues. For instance avarice has rebaptized itself as thrift and pride as self-respect. Envy claims to be the corner-stone upon which the present eras competitive system is founded. But one out of the seven vices continues to be unfortunate. It remains undisguised and does not even make an atte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: December 08, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: December 10, 2014 % + CRL.A.1431/2014 RAKESH @ TONI Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Insp.Balbir Singh, PTC Jharoda Kalan and SI Mahender Partap, PS Sultan Puri CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARDEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PARDEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has three parts. Under the heading Relevance of Facts Part-I contains sections which guide the court in determining as to which facts would be relevant at a trial to determine the facts in issue. Under the heading On Proof Part-II contains sections which guide the court in determining how relevant facts or facts in issue have to be proved, and which would include documents. It contains provisions concerning presumptions pertaining to documents. Under the heading Production and Effect of Evidence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-12-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: December 08, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: December 12, 2014 % + CRL.A. 979/2012 HEERA LAL @ HEERA Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Pramod Kumar Dubey, Mr.Shiv Chopra and Ms.Megha, Advocates. versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for the State with Inspector Rajeev Vimal, PS Kalyan Puri. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Heera Lal is convicted of the offence of robbery and murder of Jagan Singh Chauhan and awarded imprisonment for life.2. The case of prosecution rest on circumstantial evidence in the form of statements of Umesh Chauhan PW-1 and Tushar Chauhan PW-2 having last seen Heera Lal with the deceased on the night of June 07, 2010, recovery of shirt of Heera Lal which was found to be blood stained with human blood of B group origin which tallied with that of deceased and the recovery of weapon of offence an iron r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: December 12, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: December 17, 2014 % + CRL.A. 121/2014 JAI RAM @ VICKY Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Shahid Azad, Ms.Sonali Karwasra and Mr.Gaurav Bhatt, Advs. versus STATE Represented by: .... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Jai Ram @ Vicky has been convicted along with R for the murder of Ishwanti mother of R and directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.2. Learned counsel for Jai Ram challenging the circumstances held against Jai Ram by the learned Trial Court contends that the prosecution has led no evidence to show that Jai Ram and R were in love with each other. It is also not proved that the mobile phone allegedly recovered from Jai Ram belonged to the deceased. The evide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: December 12, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: December 17, 2014 % + CRL.A. 121/2014 JAI RAM @ VICKY Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Shahid Azad, Ms.Sonali Karwasra and Mr.Gaurav Bhatt, Advs. versus STATE Represented by: .... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Jai Ram @ Vicky has been convicted along with R for the murder of Ishwanti mother of R and directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.2. Learned counsel for Jai Ram challenging the circumstances held against Jai Ram by the learned Trial Court contends that the prosecution has led no evidence to show that Jai Ram and R were in love with each other. It is also not proved that the mobile phone allegedly recovered from Jai Ram belonged to the deceased. The evide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-16-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :9. h DECEMBER, 2013 DECIDED ON :16. h JANUARY, 2014 + CRL.A. 397/2003 GULSHAN SHARMA & ORS. ....Appellants Through : Mr.R.K.Thakur, Advocate with Mr.B.Mishra, Advocate. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Gulshan Sharma (A-1), Harish Sharma (A-2) and Kamni Sharma (A-3) challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 03.03.2003 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.41/00 arising out of FIR No.543/00 PS Rajouri Garden whereby they were convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 05.03.2003, they were awarded RI for five years with fine ` 5,000/-, each. The prosecution case as projected in the charge-sheet is as follows :2. On 01.06.2000, Rajeev Taneja had gone at the residence of the accused persons to demand payment which A-1 had failed to pay being member of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-21-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:21. t January, 2014 + CRL.A. 712/2011 ILYASUDDIN Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. It is stated that human lust knows no bounds-if there is any truth in it, the present case is a glaring example of such lust. A tiny tot aged about 2-1/2 years has not only fallen a victim of the lust of the appellant but also lost his precious life resulting in conviction of the appellant u/s 377/302 IPC in Sessions Case No.134/2008 u/s 377/302 IPC, P.S. Kapashera and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years for offence punishable u/s 377 IPC and for imprisonment of life for offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and further directions not to release him before the expiry of 25 years. However, benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C was given to him.2. Succinctly s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. L.P. NO.367/2012 STATE Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Narender Kumar Choudhry, APP. versus NARESH & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. B.S. Rana and Mr. Vijender Bhardwaj, Advocates. % Date of Decision : February 10, 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI JUDGMENT : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.CRL. L.P. NO.367/2012 1. Leave granted.2. Registry shall register and number the Appeal. Crl. A. No._______/2013 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 17.12.2011 in Sessions Case No.82A/2011 acquitting the Respondents Naresh, Suresh, Nirmala, Niyadher Singh and Harnandi for the offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and 304B read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the State has preferred the present Appeal.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the Appeal are that on 28.5.2005, on receipt of DD No.14A, ASI Ishwar Dutt (PW11) reached...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment pronounced on: February 25, 2014 I.A. No.10442/2013 in CS(OS) No.1299/2013 MEX SWITCHGEARS PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Mr. Amit Jain, Ms. Ekta Nayar and Mr. Vaibhav Kashyap, Advs. versus MAX SWITCHGEARS PVT LTD ..... Defendant Through Mr. Vikas Chhabra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By this order, I propose to decide the pending interim application being I.A. No.10442/2013 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of Code Of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) in a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, corporate name, copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc.2. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff i.e. Mex Switchgears Private Limited through its predecessor is the first adopter and user of the trade mark MEX since the year 1960 for electric switchgears, switches, ignition switche...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.879/2004 LT.COL.(RETD.)MUNISHWAR DEV BAKSHI ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. D. V. Khatri, Adv. versus PARSHOTTAM DASS BAKSHI & ORS. ..... Defendant Through Mr. Rajesh Tyagi for D-1(1to5) Mr.Hari, Adv. with Mr.Sanjeev Tyagi, Adv. for D-2to 6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR ORDER % 21.02.2014 I.A. No.14534/2012 (condonation of delay) 1. By this application filed under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC), the applicant/defendant No.1 seeks condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the accompanying Review Application.2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the accompanying review application is condoned.3. Application stands disposed of. Review App. 443/2012 1. By this review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 and Section 151 of CPC, the applicant/defe...
Tag this Judgment!