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 : 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 : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-10-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.C. Rev. No.3/2011 Date of Decision:10. 12.2012 SH. RAVINDER SINGH ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Milan Malhotra, Adv. Versus ...Respondent SH. DEEPESH KHORANA Through: Mr. Rajat Malhotra & Mr. Deepesh Khorana, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. This petition is being field under Sec. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the impugned order dated 13.10.2010, whereby the Ld. ARC dismissed the leave to defend application in Eviction Petition No. 17/2009, filed by the petitioner herein. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are as follows.2. The petitioner herein is the tenant in respect of a shop admeasuring 7ft X 10ft, in the ground floor of property bearing No. 89, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. In 2009, the landlord, who is the respondent herein, filed petition for eviction of the suit shop, claiming that it was required bona fide by the respondent for his 29 year old unmarried son who wants to open a computer busin...
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-14-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON:03. 12.2012 PRONOUNCED ON:14. 12.2012 + WP (C) No. 4717/2011 & CM No.9555/2011 PANACEA BIOTECH LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Shri Rajesh Mahna with Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocates Versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Sh. Vineet Bhatia, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The writ petitioner is a public limited company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of pharmaceutical products registered with the Department of Trade and Taxes. It has been purchasing goods based on the strength of the Registration certificate. It impugns the determination of the respondent authorities that the consideration it received for the sale of its cars, should be included in its total turnover for the relevant assessment year. WP(C) No. 4717/2011 Pag2. The Sales Tax Officer (Assessing Authority, the third Respondent), for...
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!