Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-03-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 238/2002 TAPAS Judgment delivered on: December 03, 2013 ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sumit Verma, Advocate versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP 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 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order on sentence dated 22.08.2001 and 01.09.2001, respectively, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, has convicted the appellant for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life together with imposition of fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two days.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-25-2013
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :11. 11.2013 Judgment delivered on :25.11.2013 CRL.A. 743/2009 PREM CHAND Through versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through ..... Appellant Mr. Rajesh Khanna, Adv. ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 08.07.2009 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC as also under Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Arm Act. He had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life specifically stating that the appellant shall not be considered for parole till he has served twenty years of incarceration. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. No separate sentence had been passed under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2 The case of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-19-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :21. t October, 2013 DECIDED ON :19. h November, 2013 + CRL.A. 473/2000 ANIL TANEJA & ANR. ..... Appellants Through : Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr.Advocate with Mr.M.L.Yadav, Mr.Lokesh Chandra & Mr.M.Shamikh, Advocates. VERSUS STATE OF DELHI Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Anil Taneja (A-1) and Madan Lal (A-2) challenge their conviction in case FIR No.256/1998 registered at PS Moti Nagar in Sessions Case No.112/1998. By a judgment dated 17th July, 2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judgment, they were held guilty under Sections 304 and 323 IPC respectively. A-1, in addition, was convicted under Section 27 Arms Act. By an order dated 19.07.2000, A-1 was awarded various prison terms with fine while A-2 was released on probation. The prosecution case emerged out of the record is as under:- 2. On 26.06.1998 at about 12.30 a.m. at shop No.26-27, Subzi Market, Moti Nagar, an alte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-19-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:10.10.2013 Judgment delivered on:19.11.2013 DEATH SENTENCE REF. 6/2010 STATE ..... Petitioner Through Ms.Richa Kapoor, APP. + versus MUKESH KUMAR Through + CRL.A. 96/2011 MUKESH KUMAR Through ..... Respondent Mr.Manu Sharma, Mr.Abhir Datt and Mr.Ali Jethhmalani, Advocates. ..... Appellant Mr.Manu Sharma, Mr.Abhir Datt and Mr.Ali Jethhmalani, Advocates. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms.Richa Kapoor, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 Sunita (PW-10) the mother of the victim Neha had made a complaint in Police Station Okhla Industrial Area on 12.06.2005 at about 01:30 PM which was to the effect that her daughter aged three years named Neha had been taken away by the appellant Mukesh on the pretext of giving her toffee; this was in the morning at 08:30 AM; since then Neha had not returned and inspite of frantic efforts made by her and her husband to s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-07-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:11. 10.2013 % Judgment delivered on:07. 11.2013 + CS(OS) 2290/2006 and I.A. No.13796/2006 ANCHOR HEALTH & BEAUTY CARE PVT.LTD...... Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Suhasini Raina & Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocates. versus SHIVAM HYGIENES INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit alleging infringement of its trademark ANCHOR by the defendant and, conse quently, seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, it principal officers, family members, stockists, servants, agents and anyone acting for and on its behalf from using the said mark, or the device, or any other mark or device that is identical or deceptively similar, or is a colorable imitation of the plaintiffs mark and device for a range of products such as Tea, Amla, Gulab Jal, Coffee, salt, etc., which may result in infringement of copyright and the re...
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 : 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-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!