Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: December 17, 2014 % + CRL.A. 810/2014 JEET SINGH @ JEETU & ANR Represented by: ..... Appellants Mr.Kaushal Yadav, Advocate. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for the State with Inspector Tarkeshwar Singh, SHO Nand Nagri. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Jeet Singh @ Jeetu and Kalu @ Neeraj both sons of Chattarsen have been convicted for the offence of murder of Deewan, on the strength of testimony of Chet Ram PW-6 the brother of the deceased vide the impugned judgment dated April 29, 2014 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `10,000/- each vide order dated May 07, 2014.2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the presence of Chet Ram at the spot when the incident took place has not been proved as PW-4 Raghunath who informed the police does not depo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: December 17, 2014 % + CRL.A. 810/2014 JEET SINGH @ JEETU & ANR Represented by: ..... Appellants Mr.Kaushal Yadav, Advocate. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for the State with Inspector Tarkeshwar Singh, SHO Nand Nagri. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Jeet Singh @ Jeetu and Kalu @ Neeraj both sons of Chattarsen have been convicted for the offence of murder of Deewan, on the strength of testimony of Chet Ram PW-6 the brother of the deceased vide the impugned judgment dated April 29, 2014 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `10,000/- each vide order dated May 07, 2014.2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the presence of Chet Ram at the spot when the incident took place has not been proved as PW-4 Raghunath who informed the police does not depo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : May-28-2014
M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) Appeal No. 172 of 2013 (SZ) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein against the order of the 1st respondent, Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short MoEF) dated 18.11.2013, granting Environmental Clearance (for short EC) to the 4th respondent, M/s. KGS Aranmula Air Port Ltd., to set up an airport at Mallappuzhasserry, Aranmula and Kidangannur villages in Kozencherry taluk of Pathanamthitta District, Kerala. A writ petition has also been filed in W.P. (C). No. 6004 of 2012 challenging the notification issued by the 2nd respondent, the State of Kerala declaring the area as an industrial area and the said writ petition is still pending before the Honble High Court of Kerala. The brief facts of the appeal filed herein are stated as follows: 2. The proposed airport is being set up by the 4th respondent on the banks of the holy river Pampa, in an ecologically sensitive and environmentally diverse and rich area. Aranmula is a declared he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Apr-01-2014
1. The above applications were filed in NGT against the proposed widening of sectoral roads involving cutting of number of trees in front of National Media Centre (NMC). The Project Proponents stated to be involved in the project are Haryana Development Authority (HUDA) and DLF Ltd. The main contention of the applicants is that there will be significant air and noise pollution problems due to movement of traffic in the area due to cutting of trees which were acting as a buffer and reducing noise and dust pollution. Incidentally, an email was received by NGT from Haryali Welfare Society addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Haryana and the Copy was sent to NGT raising the similar issues pertaining to the cutting of trees by DLF/HUDA, which was treated as an Application no. 120/2013. Regarding this Application No. 120/2013, NGT passed the order restraining the Respondents from cutting/felling or uprooting any tree on the site in question on 2/08/2013. Besides these two applications,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-08-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:08. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 6387/2012 & CM No.17030/2012 MALIK TANNING INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 4754/2014 & CM94672014 M/S. KAVISH IMPEX PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Ms Shikha Sapra for petitioner in W.P.(C) 4754/2014. Mr Naveen Malhotra for petitioner in W.P.(C) 6387/2012. For the Respondents : Mr Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI in W.P.(C) 6387/2012. Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr Amrit Singh for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) 4754/2014. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioners impugn policy circular No.42 (RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 21.10.2011 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (hereafter referred to as impugned circular) inasmuch as it curtails the benefit available under Focus Product Scheme in respect of Techn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-08-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:08. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 6387/2012 & CM No.17030/2012 MALIK TANNING INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 4754/2014 & CM94672014 M/S. KAVISH IMPEX PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Ms Shikha Sapra for petitioner in W.P.(C) 4754/2014. Mr Naveen Malhotra for petitioner in W.P.(C) 6387/2012. For the Respondents : Mr Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI in W.P.(C) 6387/2012. Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr Amrit Singh for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) 4754/2014. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioners impugn policy circular No.42 (RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 21.10.2011 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (hereafter referred to as impugned circular) inasmuch as it curtails the benefit available under Focus Product Scheme in respect of Techn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-05-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: December 02, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: December 05, 2014 % + CRL.A. 1048/2014 RAJU Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.K.Singhal, Adv. with appellant in person. Versus STATE Represented by: .... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with Insp.Rajesh Kumar, PS Swaroop Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Raju was charged for committing the murder of Smt.Shashi Rai and firing upon Ajay thus causing bullet injuries on his person in furtherance of common intention with one A a juvenile. Vide impugned judgment dated July 16, 2014 the learned Trial Court has convicted Raju for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, 307/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine in sum of `50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine in sum of `50,000/- for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-19-2014
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: November 19, 2014 + CRL.A. 50/2014 SINGH RAJ Represented by: STATE & ORS Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Dinkar Verma, Advocate versus ..... Respondents Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP Insp.Raman, SHO/PS Mehraulli SI Bijender Singh Mr.Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate for R2 and R-3 Mr.Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate for R-4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A.No.50/2014 For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. Crl.A.No.50/2014 1. Complainant is the appellant and his grievance is that respondents 2 to 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326/34 IPC. He desires that the respondents should be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.2. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the impugned order dated January 21, 2013 would show that the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-08-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:08. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 6387/2012 & CM No.17030/2012 MALIK TANNING INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 4754/2014 & CM94672014 M/S. KAVISH IMPEX PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Ms Shikha Sapra for petitioner in W.P.(C) 4754/2014. Mr Naveen Malhotra for petitioner in W.P.(C) 6387/2012. For the Respondents : Mr Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI in W.P.(C) 6387/2012. Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr Amrit Singh for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) 4754/2014. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioners impugn policy circular No.42 (RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 21.10.2011 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (hereafter referred to as impugned circular) inasmuch as it curtails the benefit available under Focus Product Scheme in respect of Techn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-08-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:08. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 6387/2012 & CM No.17030/2012 MALIK TANNING INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 4754/2014 & CM94672014 M/S. KAVISH IMPEX PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Ms Shikha Sapra for petitioner in W.P.(C) 4754/2014. Mr Naveen Malhotra for petitioner in W.P.(C) 6387/2012. For the Respondents : Mr Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI in W.P.(C) 6387/2012. Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr Amrit Singh for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) 4754/2014. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioners impugn policy circular No.42 (RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 21.10.2011 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (hereafter referred to as impugned circular) inasmuch as it curtails the benefit available under Focus Product Scheme in respect of Techn...
Tag this Judgment!