Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-20-2013
..... the specific role ascribed to appellant raj kumar @ khujjar, we reject the contention raised on his behalf that he has been implicated falsely in place of one raju nepali.24. thus, relying on the testimony of pw-8 the factum and manner of the incident is fully established and we are inclined to support the trial court ..... the form of a confessional statement is inadmissible in evidence. it is relevant so far as it relates to discovery of any fact. raju nepali was never arrested. pw-8 in his cross-examination categorically stated that there were just three persons involved in the incident. his testimony, as stated above, is credible ..... is required to discredit an injured witness. 23. the contention raised on behalf of the appellant raj kumar that he was falsely implicated in place of one raju nepali whose name also appeared in the disclosure statement made by the juvenile is also devoid of any merit for more than one reason. the disclosure statement which is in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-20-2013
..... the specific role ascribed to appellant raj kumar @ khujjar, we reject the contention raised on his behalf that he has been implicated falsely in place of one raju nepali.24. thus, relying on the testimony of pw-8 the factum and manner of the incident is fully established and we are inclined to support the trial court ..... the form of a confessional statement is inadmissible in evidence. it is relevant so far as it relates to discovery of any fact. raju nepali was never arrested. pw-8 in his cross-examination categorically stated that there were just three persons involved in the incident. his testimony, as stated above, is credible ..... is required to discredit an injured witness. 23. the contention raised on behalf of the appellant raj kumar that he was falsely implicated in place of one raju nepali whose name also appeared in the disclosure statement made by the juvenile is also devoid of any merit for more than one reason. the disclosure statement which is in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:30. 09.2013 + W.P.(C) 6278 of 2013 & CM Nos.13725-26/2013 BHAWANA KUMARI MALLICK & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Saket Sikri, Ms. Ekta K. Sikri, Mr. Sudeep Dey and Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC, Mr. Ravjyot Singh with Mr. Alok Dixit, Section Officer for R-1 and 5 Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. for R-3University of Delhi Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv. for MCI . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) The petitioners before this Court are the citizens of Nepal, who qualified COMPEX-NEPAL, 2013 EXAMINATION conducted for selection of Nepalese students for admission in Indian Educational Institutions and who have been nominated by respondent no.1 Union of India, for admission to MBBS course of Lady Harding Medical College (LHMC) of Delhi University, against Nominees of Government of India (NGOI) Quota. A communication dated 18.9.201...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-07-2013
..... agreement, i.e., 13.02.2013, there was to be no purchase target, which the petitioner was required to achieve.3. the petitioner, avers that it sold 47 stents worth nepali rupees 21,46,723/- (inr1341,702/-). it is further stated that, the petitioner had placed orders in february and june 2013 in respect of 31 and 16 stents respectively. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-07-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :01.10.2013 Judgment delivered on:07.10.2013 CRL.A. 337/2011 MOHD. SULEMAN & ANR. Through ..... Appellants Mr. M.L. Yadav, Adv. versus STATE OF DELHI Through ..... Respondent Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 On 05.03.2008 at about 03:00 PM, the appellants Ahmad Sikander and Mohd. Suleman both sons of Mohd. Yusuf had committed the murder of the victim Mohd. Nazim. While Mohd. Suleman had caught hold of the victim, Ahmad Sikandar had inflicted stab injuries upon his body. 2 This incident was projected on a motive which was to the effect that earlier in the day at about 10:00 AM, Ahmad Sikandar had gone to the house of the victim and had demanded return of Rs.3,000/- which he had lent to him at the time of Eid; the deceased had stated that he does not have the money which had led to an exchange of heated arguments between th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: October 08, 2013 + W.P.(CRL) 861/1997 U.S. PANDEY PRESIDENT OF W.A.S. ..... Petitioner Represented by: Petitioner in person versus UOI & ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Zubeda Begum, Advocate CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/1998 COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION In Re: UMA SHANKAR PANDEY ..... Contemnor Represented by: Contemnor in person CONT.CAS.(CRL) 17/2008 UMA SHANKAR PANDEY PRESIDENT OF W.A.S. Represented by: ..... Petitioner Petitioner in person versus UOI & ANR Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Zubeda Begum, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Sh.Uma Shankar Pandey is a person who believes that he has been let down by the society and the State and therefore in desperation he turns to the legal system for help. This Bench had the benefit of hearing him for about two hours on September 23, 2013, an hour and a half on September 25, 2013 and for two hours o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: October 08, 2013 + W.P.(CRL) 861/1997 U.S. PANDEY PRESIDENT OF W.A.S. ..... Petitioner Represented by: Petitioner in person versus UOI & ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Zubeda Begum, Advocate CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/1998 COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION In Re: UMA SHANKAR PANDEY ..... Contemnor Represented by: Contemnor in person CONT.CAS.(CRL) 17/2008 UMA SHANKAR PANDEY PRESIDENT OF W.A.S. Represented by: ..... Petitioner Petitioner in person versus UOI & ANR Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Zubeda Begum, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Sh.Uma Shankar Pandey is a person who believes that he has been let down by the society and the State and therefore in desperation he turns to the legal system for help. This Bench had the benefit of hearing him for about two hours on September 23, 2013, an hour and a half on September 25, 2013 and for two hours o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: October 08, 2013 + W.P.(CRL) 861/1997 U.S. PANDEY PRESIDENT OF W.A.S. ..... Petitioner Represented by: Petitioner in person versus UOI & ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Zubeda Begum, Advocate CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/1998 COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION In Re: UMA SHANKAR PANDEY ..... Contemnor Represented by: Contemnor in person CONT.CAS.(CRL) 17/2008 UMA SHANKAR PANDEY PRESIDENT OF W.A.S. Represented by: ..... Petitioner Petitioner in person versus UOI & ANR Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Zubeda Begum, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Sh.Uma Shankar Pandey is a person who believes that he has been let down by the society and the State and therefore in desperation he turns to the legal system for help. This Bench had the benefit of hearing him for about two hours on September 23, 2013, an hour and a half on September 25, 2013 and for two hours o...
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!