Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-24-2016
R.K. Gauba, J. 1. The appellant stands convicted, as charged, by judgment dated 21st March, 2016 of Court of Sessions for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) upholding the prosecution case that at about 6:15 p.m. on 20th August, 2011 on the terrace above Flat No.C-27/28, Kingsway Camp, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, he committed the murder of Rajvinder Kaur (the deceased) by intentionally inflicting multiple stab wounds and also having voluntarily caused hurt to Nisha (PW-2) by stabbing her with a sharp cutting instrument (knife). By order on sentence passed by the learned trial judge on 31st March, 2016, sentence of imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded for offence under Section 302 IPC besides rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.15,000/- for offenceunder Section 324 IPC. By the appeal at hand, the appellant (convict) seeks to assail both the judgment and the order on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-18-2016
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: September 20, 2016 Judgment Delivered on: October 18, 2016 CRL.A. 1573/2011 & Crl.M.B. 2270/2011 GAURI SHANKAR ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate. STATE Versus ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.State.1. Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 307/174A IPC Gauri Shankar challenges the impugned judgment dated June 02, 2011 and the order on sentence dated June 06, 2011 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of `500/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of `500/- for the offence punishable under Section 174A IPC.2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant contends that there are material contradictions in the statement of PW-1, Kusum on whose testimony the conv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-27-2016
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CRL.A.No.395/2000 Reserved on :26. h September, 2016 Date of decision :27. h October, 2016 RAMESH KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. versus Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Amicus Curiae. STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Varun Goswami, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. TEJI JUDGMENT GITA MITTAL, J.1. By the instant appeal, the appellant assails the judgment dated 17th May, 2000 whereby he stands convicted for commission of the offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC with which he was charged in SC Case No.25/1999 arising out of FIR No.5registered by the Police Station Jahangir Puri under Sections 498A/304B/4of the IPC and the consequential order of sentence dated 23rd May, 2000 whereby he has been sentenced to undergo Crl.A.No.395/2000 Page 1 of 56 rigorous imprisonment for three years for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC with fine of `500/- and in d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-02-2016
$~35. * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 2450/2015 Judgment dated 02nd November, 2016 PRESIDENT & FELLOWS OF HARV AND COLLEGE Through : Ms. Parul Singh, Advocate versus ..... Plaintiff SHRI RAJESH GOYAL ..... Defendant Through : Mr. Pratap Singh and Mr. Anwedra CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI Singh, Advocates G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for infringement and passing off of the mark Harvard seeking a decree against the defendant restraining them from using the mark. The plaintiff is the President & Fellows of Harvard College incorrectly mentioned as the President & Fellows of Harv and College.2. Despite service, the written statement has not been filed within the statutory period. The matter as passed over once and called second time to enable the counsels to take instructions in the matter. Counsel for the defendant submits that the defendant has no objection if the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-04-2016
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + + Reserved on :24. h October, 2016 Date of Decision:04. h November, 2016 Crl.M.A.No.15239/2016 in CRL.A. No.715/2013 MAHENDER YADAV ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikas Arora, Mr. Radhika Arora, Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocates. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ... Respondent Through: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate (SPP) with Mr. D.P. Singh, Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Ms. Hiral Gupta, Mr. Manu Mishra & Mr. Harinder Bains, Advocates for CBI. Mr. H.S. Phoolka Senior Advocate with Ms. Kamna Vohra, Ms. Shilpa Dewan, Advocates for the Complainant. Mr.Gurbaksh Singh & Mr. Lakhmi Chand, Advocates for victim Jagsher Singh. Crl.M.A.No.15233/2016 in CRL.A. No.753/2013 KRISHAN KHOKAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Arora, Ms. Radhika Arora & Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocates. versus C B I ..... Respondent Through: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate (SPP) with Mr. D.P. Singh, Ms. Tarannum Crl.A.Nos.715/2013, 753/2013 & 1099...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-18-2016
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :11. 11.2016 Judgment delivered on:18. 11.2016. CM(M) 579/2015 & C.M. Nos.11006/2015, 31084/2015, 31085/2015, 2550/2016 & 29897/2016 THE TIBETAN CHILDRENS VILLAGE SCHOOL ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Jagdeep Kishore, Mr. Naresh Mathur and Ms. Rekha Gupta, Advs. versus KARMA LAMA & ANR Singh ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Giriraj Subramanium, Mr. Simarpal and Mr.Sidhant Krishan Singh, Advs for R-1 & R-2. Mr. Tenzing Tsering and Mr. Tenzin Namgyal, Advs for R-3. Mr. Kapil Kumar Nim, Adv for R-4. Sawhney CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 The petitioner before this Court is Tibetan Childrens Village School (TCV). It is functional from upper Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh. This petition has been filed through its General Secretary. 2 This petition concerns the adoption rights of a minor child namely Master Tenzin Tsering (in short Tenzin). The averments in the writ petition disclose that a l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-28-2016
s$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:28. h November, 2016 + CRL.A. 1027/2016 & Crl.M.(Bail) 1934/2016 SANJEET RAM @ SANJEET ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, Adv. STATE versus Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for ..... Respondent the State CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT(Oral) GITA MITTAL, J1 The appellant assails the judgment dated 22nd February, 2016 passed by the District & Sessions Judge (East) finding him guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and 27 Arms Act with which he was charged in Sessions Case No.18/2013 registered by the Police Station Gazipur. The appellant also assails the order dated 29th February, 2016 passed on the point of sentence as a result of his conviction whereby the appellant stands sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Crl. A. 1027/2016 Pag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-01-2016
$~3 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:01. 12.2016 CEAC112005 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod Kr. Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel. versus M/S U.K.PAINTS (I) P.LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Naveeen Mullick and Mr. Parth Mullick, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J (Oral) The following questions of law were framed on 27.01.2011 in 1. this appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise: (1) Whether the adjudicating authority is not required to call the DEEC and other related documents for quantification of correct amount of refund?. (2) Whether the CESTAT has the jurisdiction to decide the appeal in respect of any order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with sub-section 1(b) of Section 35B of the Act ibid and proviso thereto in the cases wherein g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-15-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 715/2012 Date of Decision:15. 12.2016 NARESH KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Amicus Curiae STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS ....... RESPONDENTS Through: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for versus the State CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) 1. The appellant assails his conviction by the judgment dated 10th May, 2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.1arising out of FIR No.898/2005 registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the Section 27/of the Arms Act registered by the police station Prashant Vihar with regard to an incident which took place on 15th October, 2005. The appellant also challenges the consequential order of sentence dated 2nd June, 2010 whereby he stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six month under Section 302 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-22-2016
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. No.514/2000 Date of Decision :22. d December, 2016 SURAJ BHAN & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS Through Mr.M.L. Yadav, Adv. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION RESPONDENT Through Mr.Narender Mann, Spl.P.P. with Mr.Manoj Pant, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J1 Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 7th August, 2000 convicting the appellants finding them guilty under Sectionsof the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act, 1985) and order on sentence dated 9th August, 2000 vide which the sentence was passed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, in default of payment of fine, convict was to undergo further simple imprisonment for three years, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.2. The facts in brief are that on the basis of the Source ...
Tag this Judgment!