Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-22-2012
..... on 04.08.1996 javed khan pointed out room no. 106 in satyam hotel, pahar ganj and informed the police that on 14.05.1996 he alongwith his associate sonu nepali stayed there and kept then in the evening handed over the bag with explosives to wazid; javed khan also identified rajan arora to whom he had paid the room rent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-22-2012
..... on 04.08.1996 javed khan pointed out room no. 106 in satyam hotel, pahar ganj and informed the police that on 14.05.1996 he alongwith his associate sonu nepali stayed there and kept then in the evening handed over the bag with explosives to wazid; javed khan also identified rajan arora to whom he had paid the room rent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-22-2012
..... on 04.08.1996 javed khan pointed out room no. 106 in satyam hotel, pahar ganj and informed the police that on 14.05.1996 he alongwith his associate sonu nepali stayed there and kept then in the evening handed over the bag with explosives to wazid; javed khan also identified rajan arora to whom he had paid the room rent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-22-2012
..... on 04.08.1996 javed khan pointed out room no. 106 in satyam hotel, pahar ganj and informed the police that on 14.05.1996 he alongwith his associate sonu nepali stayed there and kept then in the evening handed over the bag with explosives to wazid; javed khan also identified rajan arora to whom he had paid the room rent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-14-2012
44 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4231/2012 NANDINI BHATNAGAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Bhaduri, Advocate with Mr. Krishna Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with ASI Narender Singh, PS CWC Nanak Pura, New Delhi. Mr. Atul Aggarwal and Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocates for complainant. Complainant in person. Date of Decision:14. h December, 2012 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J : (Oral) Crl.M.A. 19845/2012 (exemption) in Crl.M.C. 4231/2012 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Accordingly, present application stands disposed of. Crl.M.C. 4231/2012 & Crl.M.A. 19844/2012 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, whereby the petitioner has been directed not to leave the boundary of the NCT of Delhi as well as the NCR and the count...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-19-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:13. h September, 2012 Date of Decision:19th December, 2012 % + (1) Criminal Appeal No. 384/2012 ASHA Through ....Appellant Mr. Jitender Sethi and Mr. Rohit Bhargava, Advocates. Versus STATE Through (2) Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP. Criminal Appeal No. 433/2012 ANAND SINGH @ DHAMMAL ....Appellant Through Mr. Jaideep Malik, Advocate. Versus STATE Through (3) Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP. Criminal Appeal No. 434/2012 ANAR SINGH Through ....Appellant Mr. Sunil Dalal and Mr. Ashish Sharma, Advocates. Versus STATE Through (4) Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP. Criminal Appeal No. 443/2012 SHAILENDER @ BABLEY Through ....Appellant Mr. Mohit Mathur, Mr. Pawan Mathur and Mr. Vikram Panwar, Advocates. Versus STATE Through (5) Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP. Criminal Appeal No. 455/2012 ASHOK KHATRI & ANR. Through ....Appellant Mr. R.M. Tufail and Mr. Vishal Sehijpal, Advocates. Versus STATE Through (6) Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, AP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Dec-20-2012
G. George Paracken: 1. The challenge in this Original Application is against the order dated 23.11.aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-1 show cause notice dated 03.03.2011 proposing to cancel his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police. He is also aggrieved by the Annexure A-2 order dated 02.03.2011 by which his candidature has been cancelled. 2. This case was earlier heard and disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 15.11.2011. In fact, this O.A was allowed and the respondents were directed to give appointment to the applicant to the post of Constable (Exe.) on the ground that his case was squarely covered by the earlier order of a co-ordinate Bench in Dharam Veer Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (OA 164/2010) decided on 25.11.2010 having its operative part as under: 6. It is not possible to agree with the arguments of the Respondents in view of the fact that the candidature of the Applicant has not been cancelle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-21-2012
* + $~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No.1472/2010 & Crl.M.(Bail) No.697/2012 Date of Decision: RAJ KUMAR @ GUDDU Through 21st December, 2012. ..... Appellant Mr. Avadh Kaushik, Adv. Versus THE STATE OF DELHI Through Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA GITA MITTAL, J 1.By way of the present appeal, the appellant assails the judgment dated 2nd June, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, finding him guilty of commission of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of the same date whereby he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- in default whereof, simple imprisonment for three months for the commission of the said offence.2. As per the prosecution, Gajraj Singh Yadav- PW 5.an employee of the MTNL posted at Gulabi Bagh, Delhi, was residing at House No.173, Page 1 of 51 Libaspur, Delhi with his family comprising of his deceased...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-27-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa: 1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order passed by the lower authorities. 2. As per facts on record, the officer of directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted one truck enroute to Gorkhpur on 7.11.07, the same was found to be loaded with scrap of old and used fused battery of various sizes. Inasmuch as markings on some of the goods indicated that they were manufactured in Japan, Revenue entertained a view that the said goods were smuggled. 3. The statement of driver, Shri Rajesh Yadav, was recorded on 7.11.07 wherein, he inter alia deposed that the goods were belonging to one Shri Rajesh Babu, owner of M/s. Jai Ambey Traders, Nautanwa. He further stated that he had gone to the house of Shri Rajesh Babu for loading of the said goods along with his younger brother Shri Girijesh Babu. Inasmuch as the said goods were not found at the premises, he was told to wait and Shri Girijesh Babu went to Nepal and c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-02-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit alleging infringement of copyright and passing off in respect of the Defendant’s product, “Shilajit Gold”. The Plaintiff has also filed an application seeking interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using Defendant’s product pending trial in the matter. Both parties have made their respective submissions. By this order, I propose to decide the pending interim application being IA No. 6255/2012 (Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC). CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF 2. The present suit pertains to trade mark comprising trade dress and get-up of DABUR SHILAJIT GOLD packaging which has been advertised and sold extensively since 2006. 3. Packagings used by the plaintiff in the year 2006 and since August, 2010 are scanned and reproduced hereunder: “Picture” It appears that substantially both packaging as shown are almost similar. 4. As per the case of the plaintiff, the said pac...
Tag this Judgment!