Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-09-2013
$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:9. h October, 2013 + CRL.M.C.2430/2013 DEVINDER PAL SINGH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Mohit Mathur, Ms. Daman Kohli and Mr. Sahil Bhattacharya, Advs. along with petitioner in person. versus STATE & ANR. Through ..... Respondent Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State with Inspector M.L.Meena, DIG/South Distt., P.S. Defence Colony. Mr. A. Mohanty, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. This is a petition u/s 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 moved by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 22.05.2013 whereby respondent no.2 was granted anticipatory bail. It is the case of the petitioner that accused/respondent no.2 sold a plot bearing No.J-262, New Alipore, Kolkata for a consideration of Rs. 60 lakhs and further took another Rs. 33 lakhs on the pretext of helping the complainant to obtain possession of the plot. When the possession was not deliver...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-09-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Govt. of NCT of Delh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-09-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Shyam Sharma, Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-11-2013
..... the appellant. it was further observed that there was huge recovery of contraband, as such, there must be strong reasons to falsely implicate the accused persons who are nepali nationals. the police officers have no ill will or motive to falsely implicate them in such a serious case.22. present case stands on a much different footing, ..... at a conclusion as to what is the effect of nonexamination of panch witnesses. each case has its own facts. in that case both the panch witnesses were nepali. they could not be examined being untraceable. the complainant supported the case of the prosecution. it was observed that there is no inkling in the evidence on record ..... that being so, it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to the appellant. in gita lama tamang (supra) also a plea was taken that appellants were nepali nationals and were not conversant with english language. it was observed that if panchnama and confessional statements made by the accused under section 67 of ndps act are read in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-11-2013
..... statement that two of the boys put knife on the stomach of anil and did not assign any specific role to ram kumar. in the crossexamination he clarified that the nepali boy (who could not be arrested) had put knife on anil s abdomen. pw-2 (anil kumar), the complainant, merely deposed that all the four assailants had come along with ..... long knives. he, however, was not specific if ram kumar had used the knife to rob him. in the cross-examination he implicated ram kumar and one nepali boy who put knives on his abdomen. ram kumar was arrested after more than three months of the incident with a knife a separate case under section 25 arms act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-11-2013
dev satya Digitally signed by dev satya DN: c=IN, o=delhi high court, ou=delhi high court, postalCode=110003, st=delhi, cn=dev satya Date:2013. 11.01 12:54:35 +05'30' $~17-18, 20-28, 30-85 & 125 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.No.338/2009 Date of decision :11. h October, 2013 % SATYA PRAKASH ..... Petitioner versus STATE ..... Respondent WITH Crl.Rev.P.Nos.289/2011, 457/2013, 286/2007, 585/2007, 692/2007, 740/2007, 744/2007, 67/2008, 613/2008, 646/2008, 678/2008, 20/2009, 83/2009, 348/2009, 373/2009, 412/2009, 440/2009, 442/2009, 355/2010, 432/2010, 695/2010, 14/2011, 281/2011, 395/2011, 430/2011, 513/2011, 35/2012, 63/2012, 69/2012, 96/2012, 108/2012, 121/2012, 137/2012, 185/2012, 200/2012, 236/2012, 313/2012, 387/2012, 424/2012, 463/2012, 492/2012, 556/2012, 590/2012, 608/2012, 651/2012, 669/2012, 684/2012, 279/2013, 407/2013, 414/2013, 454/2013, 470/2013 & 119/2012 Present :554. 2007, 581/2008, 321/2009, 257/2010, 339/2011, 67/2012, 155/2012, 402/2012, 606/2012...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.374/2012 24th October, 2013 % POONAM BHARGAV Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Prafulla Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through: Respondents Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, CGSC with Mr. Amit Yadav, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Petitioner was appointed in an institute in Nepal known as Manmohan Memorial Polytechnic, Hattimudha, Nepal. Petitioner was appointed on contract basis. Petitioner claims that the contractual period was of three years in terms of the subject advertisement but she was illegally terminated before expiry of the period which is questioned in this petition.2. Petitioner however has failed to show any contract of appointment for a period of three years or more. This case was argued yesterday when a different counsel appeared, today a different counsel appears for the petitioner and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:29. 10.2013 + CRL.A. 1340/2010 ATENDER YADAV Through: ..... Appellant Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate Appellant produced from custody versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.1. By this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C) the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 20.09.2010 and 23.09.2010 respectively passed by the Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, West Distt., Delhi, thereby convicting the appellant for committing an offence under Section 376(2) (f) of India Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life together with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-06-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:06. 11.2013 + FAO NO.44 OF2013& CMs 17579-80/2013 SUNEET AHUJA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. P.Vinay Kumar with Ms.Sadiqua Fatima, Advocates. versus KOMAL AHUJA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Abhinav Bajaj, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (Open Court) 1. The present appeal is directed against the order of the Family Court in HMA No.58/2012 whereby the respondents (wifes) application for maintenance under Section 24 under the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed.2. The facts of the appellants case are that the appellant and the respondent got married on 2.1.2001. The appellant i.e. husband is working as a Naval Officer. The wife claimed that she was harassed and eventually thrown out of the matrimonial home in November, 2010. The husband preferred divorce proceedings on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-06-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on :24.10.2013 Judgment delivered on:06.11.2013 CRL.A. 1375/2010 RADHEY SHYAM Through: ..... Appellant Mr.R.N.Dubey, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 On the intervening night of 18-19.01.2006 at about 3.45 a.m. DD No.27-A was received in police station Tilak Nagar giving information through an unknown person that one lady was lying murdered in House No.WZ-12, Chaukhandi Village. This DD was entrusted to SI Jaipal Singh (PW-8) who along with constable Vinod (PW-16) reached the spot. 2 On the way on reaching the primary school Chaukhandi, a TSR was noted coming from the opposite side; on the signal given by the TSR driver PW-8 stopped his vehicle, Joginder (PW-1) was driving the said TSR. The appellant Radhey Shaym was sitting in this TSR. PW-1 informed the police officials that Radhey Shyam w...
Tag this Judgment!