Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-31-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : October 31, 2014 + CRL.A. 299/2012 RIYAZ KHAN @ GAINDA ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Manoj Singh with Mr. Abhay Singh, Advocates. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP Insp. Naresh Kumar, Insp. Spl. Staff (North). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Believing the testimony of Suresh Kumar PW-1 and accepting that the knife Ex.P-2 was got recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement made by appellant Riyaz Khan, which knife when sent for the opinion of Dr.Vijay Dhankar PW-22 was opined as capable of inflicting the three injuries on deceased Sunil and additionally capable of causing the cut marks on a vest and a shirt worn by the deceased when he was assaulted, the learned trial Judge has opined vide impugned judgment dated December 14, 2010 that the prosecution has successfully established that Riyaz K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-22-2014
$~5. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.389/2011 Date of decision:22. d April, 2014 ARVIND KUMAR ..... Appellant Through Mr. Mohan Tyagi & Ms. Ruchi Kapur, Advocates. Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) Arvind Kumar has challenged his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for having committed murder of Kusheshwar on 29th April, 2006 by a fire arm injury. The impugned judgment dated 12th January, 2011, however, acquits the appellant under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 on the ground of want of sanction. State has not preferred any appeal against the said acquittal. By order on sentence dated 27 th January, 2011, the appellant has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo Simple Imprisonme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-08-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: October 10, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: December 08, 2014 % + CRL.A. 1065/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for the State with SI Dalip Kumar, Spl.Cell/NDR. versus BASHIR AHMED PONNU & ORS ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Dinesh Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. The State is aggrieved by the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the respondents Bashir Ahmed Ponnu, Fayaz Ahmed Lone, Abdul Majeed Baba and Shahid Gafoor for the offences punishable under Section 120B/121/121-A/122/123 IPC & Section 17/18/20/21/23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (in short the UAP Act), acquitting Bashir Ahmed for offence punishable under Section 489(B)/489 (C) of IPC and Shahid Gafoor for offences punishable under Section 186/353/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-30-2014
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: April 21, 2014 Judgment pronounced on: April 30, 2014 LPA1072014 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA Versus JAGAN NATH MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate with Mr.Kamal Gupta, Ms.Ridhima Bansal and Mr.Mohit Chadha, Advocates W.P.(C) 7921/2012 VED EDUCATIONAL WELFARE SOCIETY ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate with Mr.Kamal Gupta, Ms.Ridhima Bansal and Mr.Mohit Chadha, Advocates Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Advocate with Ms.D.Ray Chaudhary, Advocate for DDA W.P.(C) 1327/2013 TRIVENI EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate with Mr.Kamal Gupta, Ms.Ridhima Bansal and Mr.Mohit Chadha, Advocates Versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-30-2014
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: April 21, 2014 Judgment pronounced on: April 30, 2014 LPA1072014 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA Versus JAGAN NATH MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate with Mr.Kamal Gupta, Ms.Ridhima Bansal and Mr.Mohit Chadha, Advocates W.P.(C) 7921/2012 VED EDUCATIONAL WELFARE SOCIETY ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate with Mr.Kamal Gupta, Ms.Ridhima Bansal and Mr.Mohit Chadha, Advocates Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Advocate with Ms.D.Ray Chaudhary, Advocate for DDA W.P.(C) 1327/2013 TRIVENI EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate with Mr.Kamal Gupta, Ms.Ridhima Bansal and Mr.Mohit Chadha, Advocates Versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-30-2014
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: April 21, 2014 Judgment pronounced on: April 30, 2014 LPA1072014 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA Versus JAGAN NATH MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate with Mr.Kamal Gupta, Ms.Ridhima Bansal and Mr.Mohit Chadha, Advocates W.P.(C) 7921/2012 VED EDUCATIONAL WELFARE SOCIETY ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate with Mr.Kamal Gupta, Ms.Ridhima Bansal and Mr.Mohit Chadha, Advocates Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Advocate with Ms.D.Ray Chaudhary, Advocate for DDA W.P.(C) 1327/2013 TRIVENI EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate with Mr.Kamal Gupta, Ms.Ridhima Bansal and Mr.Mohit Chadha, Advocates Versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-30-2014
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: April 21, 2014 Judgment pronounced on: April 30, 2014 LPA1072014 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA Versus JAGAN NATH MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate with Mr.Kamal Gupta, Ms.Ridhima Bansal and Mr.Mohit Chadha, Advocates W.P.(C) 7921/2012 VED EDUCATIONAL WELFARE SOCIETY ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate with Mr.Kamal Gupta, Ms.Ridhima Bansal and Mr.Mohit Chadha, Advocates Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Advocate with Ms.D.Ray Chaudhary, Advocate for DDA W.P.(C) 1327/2013 TRIVENI EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate with Mr.Kamal Gupta, Ms.Ridhima Bansal and Mr.Mohit Chadha, Advocates Versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-29-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:29. 04.2014 RC. REV. 62/2014 & CM APPLs. 2137-38/2014 SMT. ASHA LATA PANDEY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Adv. Versus BRAHAM PAL SINGH YADAV Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI1 The present petition impugns an order of 31st May, 2013 whereby the petitioners eviction petition before the Rent Controller was dismissed. Facts:2. The petitioner along with her late husband had filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act) seeking eviction of the respondent from the suit premises bearing No.R-157, Gali No.8, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92. The grounds for revision petition are that there has been a miscarriage of justice; that suit property was required bona fide for her family and there is no other suitable accommodation available; the eviction petition does not abate on the death of one of the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-29-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : March 21, 2014 DECIDED ON : April 29, 2014 + CRL.A.323/2012 ABDUL AZIZ Through : ..... Appellant Mr.R.P.S.Jaiswal, Advocate. versus STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The appellant-Abdul Aziz challenges the correctness and legality of a judgment dated 04.02.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 (North) in Sessions Case No.52/2011 arising out of FIR No.263/2006 under Section 395/412/120B IPC registered at police station Kotwali by which he was convicted under Section 412 IPC. By an order dated 09.02.2012, he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine `10,000/-.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as set up in the charge- sheet, was that on 04.06.2006 at about 3.15 p.m. a decoity took place at the office of the complainant-Sukhbir Sharan Aggarwal at 1994, Katra Lachu Singh, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The assailants decamped with cash `22/23 l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-28-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.154/2013 28th April, 2014 % KARTAR SINGH Through: ......Appellant Mr. Himanshu Dutt, Adv. VERSUS RAM ANUJ PANDEY Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This second appeal impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 4.2.2012 and the first appellate court dated 5.12.2012; by which the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for possession was decreed with respect to the suit land being a plot of 40 sq. yds in K.No.11/19, Village Jhuljhuli Extention, New Delhi-73.2. The respondent-plaintiff claimed possession of the suit plot on the ground that he had purchased rights of the same on the basis of general power of attorney registered before the sub-Registrar on 25.2.2002 by the appellant-defendant. Appellant-defendant had also executed a Will dated 25.2.2002 in favour of the respondent-plain...
Tag this Judgment!