Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-12-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : July 07, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on : August 12, 2014 + CRL.A. 1172/2012 BUBAY @ MAYA Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Sidharth Agarwal Advocate with Mr.Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP SI Roshan Lal, PS Nangloi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Bubay @ Maya is a transgender. She was living with Ramu as his wife in a room at No.RZ-C-213, Ambika Enclave, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi. Ramu was earning his livelihood by plying a cycle rickshaw. On February 22, 2008 he died due to haemorrhagic shock occasioned by excessive bleeding. The place where he received the injury was the room in which he resided with Maya. The injury was caused with the knife Ex.P-5. Maya was present in the room when Ramu was stabbed.2. Post mortem report of the dead body of Ramu was conducted on February 23, 2008 by Dr.Man...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-01-2014
$~R-101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA5692005 Reserved on 21st November, 2014 Delivered on 1st December, 2014 INDIAN AIRLINES Through ..... Appellant : Mr. Amit K. Pateria, Adv. Versus ANGELIQUE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ANR..... Through : None ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.1. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that wrong delivery of goods will fall within the ambit and scope of Clause 18 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (the Act, for short), thus, suit for recovery of `6,46,800/- filed by the respondent No.1 against appellant was barred by time, having been filed after two years of loss of goods, in view of Rule 29 of the first Schedule and Rule 30 of the second Schedule to the Act.2. By placing reliance on M/s. Vij Sales Corporation vs. Lufthansa Airlines, 1981 2 ILR (Del) 749, which was later on followed in Old Village Ind. Vs. British Airways 1991 RLR443 trial court, in the context of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-01-2014
$~R-101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA5692005 Reserved on 21st November, 2014 Delivered on 1st December, 2014 INDIAN AIRLINES Through ..... Appellant : Mr. Amit K. Pateria, Adv. Versus ANGELIQUE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ANR..... Through : None ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.1. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that wrong delivery of goods will fall within the ambit and scope of Clause 18 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (the Act, for short), thus, suit for recovery of `6,46,800/- filed by the respondent No.1 against appellant was barred by time, having been filed after two years of loss of goods, in view of Rule 29 of the first Schedule and Rule 30 of the second Schedule to the Act.2. By placing reliance on M/s. Vij Sales Corporation vs. Lufthansa Airlines, 1981 2 ILR (Del) 749, which was later on followed in Old Village Ind. Vs. British Airways 1991 RLR443 trial court, in the context of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-22-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :16. h DECEMBER, 2013 DECIDED ON :22. d JANUARY, 2014 + CRL.A. 768/2000 MADAN LAL Through : ....Appellant Mr.Jitendra Sethi, Advocate with Mr.Rajesh Kaushik & Mr.Hemendra Jailia, Advocates. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY) OF DELHI .Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Madan Lal (the appellant) questions the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 17.11.2000 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.499/96 arising out of FIR No.214/85 PS Subzi Mandi by which he was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. By an order dated 23.11.2000, he was awarded RI for three years with fine ` 5,000/-.2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 29.04.1985 at about 09.45 P.M. in front of house No.10621, Gali No.6, Andha Mugal, he inflicted injuries to Tara Chand in an attempt to murder him. During the course of investigatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: March 24, 2014 + CRL.A. 316/1998 NARESH GUPTA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate Versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.1. Challenge in the present appeal is the impugned judgment dated and order on sentence dated 30.07.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellant has been held guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment together with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to further undergo RI for a period of six months.2. The case of the prosecution in brief, can be summarized as under:On 24.06.1984 at about 6.55 p.m., SI Ashutosh was handed over a copy of the DD Report...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-01-2014
$~R-101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA5692005 Reserved on 21st November, 2014 Delivered on 1st December, 2014 INDIAN AIRLINES Through ..... Appellant : Mr. Amit K. Pateria, Adv. Versus ANGELIQUE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ANR..... Through : None ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.1. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that wrong delivery of goods will fall within the ambit and scope of Clause 18 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (the Act, for short), thus, suit for recovery of `6,46,800/- filed by the respondent No.1 against appellant was barred by time, having been filed after two years of loss of goods, in view of Rule 29 of the first Schedule and Rule 30 of the second Schedule to the Act.2. By placing reliance on M/s. Vij Sales Corporation vs. Lufthansa Airlines, 1981 2 ILR (Del) 749, which was later on followed in Old Village Ind. Vs. British Airways 1991 RLR443 trial court, in the context of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.383/1998 Reserved on:10. h January, 2014 Date of Decision:24. h January, 2014 % CHANDER PAL SINGH ..... Appellant Through Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate. Versus STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.450/1998 ANGREJ SINGH ..... Appellant Through Mr. L.K. Passi, Advocate. Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.: The appellants Chander Pal Singh and Angrej Singh by the impugned judgment dated 19th August, 1998 stand convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for murder of Harvinder Kataria on 13th May, 1994 at about 9.30 P.M. According to the prosecution, Chander Pal Singh had inflicted injury on the chest of the deceased with a kripan, while Angrej Singh, the conductor restrained h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : May-30-2014
M.S Nambiar (Judicial Member): 1. This application is for review/modification of the final order dated 03.04.2014 passed in original application no. 58/2013 filed by respondent No. 11/ Noticee no. 34 (M/s Jaypee Infratech Ltd.). By order dated 03.04.2014, the original application was disposed of giving certain directions making it clear that the decision taken by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) based on those directions will be subject to the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The O.A. was filed praying for a direction against the respondents to prevent illegal and unauthorized construction works undertaken by the developers within a radius of 10 Kms. from the boundary of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. While the original application was pending, by interim order dated 28.10.2013 based on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 04.12.2006 in "Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India". It was held that any new project which is being considered for the purpose of issuance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-07-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: July 31, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: August 07 , 2014 % + CRL.A. 725/2014 GANESH PANDURANG Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Inderjeet Sindhu, Adv. versus STATE Represented by: .... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP Insp.Ravinder Kumar, PS Darya Ganj SI Yogendra Kumar, PS Tughlak Road. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Ganesh Pandurang a Constable of CRPF, 73 Battalion is convicted of the murder of his colleague while being posted as Guard at 6, Akbar Road, New Delhi vide impugned judgment dated August 12, 2010 on the strength of witnesses in and outside the place of incident and the bullets being fired from his service rifle. Vide the impugned order dated August 18, 2010, he has been directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.2. Ganesh Pandurang assails t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: August 12, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: August 26, 2014 + DEATH SENTENCE REF. 1/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with Insp. Sandeep Gupta, Ranjeet Dhaka, SHO Bir Singh and ASI Nihal Singh, PS Chhawla versus RAVI KUMAR & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.A.J.Bhambhani, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate/Amicus Curiae and Ms.Bhavita Modi, Advocate for Ravi Ms.Saahila Lamba, Amicus Curiae for Vinod @ Chottu Mr.Vikas Padora, Advocate with Mr.Chaman Lal, Advocate for Rahul CRL.A. 563/2014 RAHUL Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Vikas Padora, Advocate with Mr.Chaman Lal, Advocate versus STATE OF DELHI Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with Insp. Sandeep Gupta, Ranjeet Dhaka, SHO Bir Singh and ASI Nihal Singh, PS Chhawla CRL.A. 726/2014 RAVI Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.A.J.Bhambhani, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate/Amicus...
Tag this Judgment!