Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-31-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :13. h MAY, 2013 DECIDED ON :31. t MAY, 2013 + CRL.A. 1037/2012 & CRL.M.B.Nos.285/2013 & 1633/2012 BAIJ NATH MITTAL Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Rebecca M.John, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Kushdeep Gaur & Mr.Harsh Bora, Advocates. versus STATE THR.C.B.I. Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Spl.P.P. AND + CRL.A. 1090/2012 & CRL.M.B.1701/2012 MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Vishal Gosain, Advocate with Mr.Kushdeep Gaur & Mr.Harsh Bora, Advocates. versus STATE THR.CBI Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Spl.P.P. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.CRL.M.B.Nos.285/2013 & 1633/2012 in CRL.A.1037/2012 & CRL.M.B.1701/2012 in CRL.A.1090/2012 1. The appellants- Baij Nath Mittal and Mukesh Kumar Gupta seek suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. I have heard the counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.P.P. Apparently, allegations against the appellants are very serious whereby they allegedly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-31-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :13. h MAY, 2013 DECIDED ON :31. t MAY, 2013 + CRL.A. 1037/2012 & CRL.M.B.Nos.285/2013 & 1633/2012 BAIJ NATH MITTAL Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Rebecca M.John, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Kushdeep Gaur & Mr.Harsh Bora, Advocates. versus STATE THR.C.B.I. Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Spl.P.P. AND + CRL.A. 1090/2012 & CRL.M.B.1701/2012 MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Vishal Gosain, Advocate with Mr.Kushdeep Gaur & Mr.Harsh Bora, Advocates. versus STATE THR.CBI Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Spl.P.P. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.CRL.M.B.Nos.285/2013 & 1633/2012 in CRL.A.1037/2012 & CRL.M.B.1701/2012 in CRL.A.1090/2012 1. The appellants- Baij Nath Mittal and Mukesh Kumar Gupta seek suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. I have heard the counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.P.P. Apparently, allegations against the appellants are very serious whereby they allegedly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-31-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :13. h MAY, 2013 DECIDED ON :31. t MAY, 2013 + CRL.A. 1037/2012 & CRL.M.B.Nos.285/2013 & 1633/2012 BAIJ NATH MITTAL Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Rebecca M.John, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Kushdeep Gaur & Mr.Harsh Bora, Advocates. versus STATE THR.C.B.I. Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Spl.P.P. AND + CRL.A. 1090/2012 & CRL.M.B.1701/2012 MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Vishal Gosain, Advocate with Mr.Kushdeep Gaur & Mr.Harsh Bora, Advocates. versus STATE THR.CBI Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Spl.P.P. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.CRL.M.B.Nos.285/2013 & 1633/2012 in CRL.A.1037/2012 & CRL.M.B.1701/2012 in CRL.A.1090/2012 1. The appellants- Baij Nath Mittal and Mukesh Kumar Gupta seek suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. I have heard the counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.P.P. Apparently, allegations against the appellants are very serious whereby they allegedly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-30-2013
-* + THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) No. 1341/1998 Date of Decision:30. 05.2013 INDUS TOURS AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD. Through: ....Plaintiff Ms. Lalita Kohli, Mr. Abhishek Swarup, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Advs. Versus ...Defendant INDUS INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD. Through: Nemo CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of USD 409,086 (US $ Four Hundred and Nine Thousand Eighty Six only), equivalent to Rs. 1,61,71,170/(Rupees One Crore Sixty One Lakh Seventy One Thousand and One Hundred Seventy Only).2. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of tour operators in India, Nepal and other Asian countries. The defendant is a company incorporated under the laws of Japan and is also engaged in the business of tourism, operating from Japan. The plaintiff submits that it had been rendering various services for conducting tours to the defendant company since the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-30-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :22. 05.2013 Decided on :30. 05.2013 + W.P.(C)3156/2013 DILEEP KUMAR SINGH BISHT ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Anil Mittal, Advocate VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Himanshu Bajaj and Mr.Aditya Malhotra, Advocates for UOI/R-1, R-4 and R-5 Mr.Narendra Mann, Advocate for R2/CBI CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.1. By the present public interest litigation, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus for directions to respondent No.2 CBI to hold time-bound inquiry against respondent No.3 Sh. Subhash Kumar under the direct supervision of this Court and to investigate the allegations against him.2. The petitioner claims to be a citizen of India and a domicile of Uttarakhand. He is also an Ex-Corporator of the Lucknow Nagar Nigam. He states that the present writ has been filed on the basis of information received by him from various documen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-30-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 815/2011 Reserved on:21. t March, 2013 Decided on:30. h May, 2013 % TAPAN KUMAR MAJHI Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Saahila Lamba, Adv. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP with SI Satender Kumar, PS Karol Bagh. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 By this appeal the Appellant challenges the judgment dated 21st January, 2011 convicting the Appellant for offence under Section 304 IPC and the order on sentence dated 22nd January, 2011 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the Appellant was in the business of jewellery making and the deceased was the nephew of the Appellant. The deceased was residing in a village of West Bengal with his father and was sent with the Appellant in the month of November to lear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: May 02, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: May 30, 2013 W.P.(C) 4387/2007 EX.CONST.AJAYVIR GULIA .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Shanker Raju, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: .....Respondents Mr.Gautam Gupta, Advocate for Mr.Aditya Madan, Advocate Judgment Reserved on: May 06, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: May 30, 2013 W.P.(C) 1026/2013 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI REPRESENTED BY: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocate with Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocate versus RAVINDER SINGH Represented by: .....Respondent Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate Judgment Reserved on: May 13, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: May 30, 2013 W.P.(C) 7344/2012 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Represented by: Ms.Sonia Arora, Advocate with Mr.Varun Gupta, Advocate versus MAHESH KUMAR & ORS. Represented by: .....Respondents Mr.Saurabh Ahuja, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: May 02, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: May 30, 2013 W.P.(C) 4387/2007 EX.CONST.AJAYVIR GULIA .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Shanker Raju, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: .....Respondents Mr.Gautam Gupta, Advocate for Mr.Aditya Madan, Advocate Judgment Reserved on: May 06, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: May 30, 2013 W.P.(C) 1026/2013 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI REPRESENTED BY: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocate with Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocate versus RAVINDER SINGH Represented by: .....Respondent Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate Judgment Reserved on: May 13, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: May 30, 2013 W.P.(C) 7344/2012 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Represented by: Ms.Sonia Arora, Advocate with Mr.Varun Gupta, Advocate versus MAHESH KUMAR & ORS. Represented by: .....Respondents Mr.Saurabh Ahuja, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: May 02, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: May 30, 2013 W.P.(C) 4387/2007 EX.CONST.AJAYVIR GULIA .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Shanker Raju, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: .....Respondents Mr.Gautam Gupta, Advocate for Mr.Aditya Madan, Advocate Judgment Reserved on: May 06, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: May 30, 2013 W.P.(C) 1026/2013 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI REPRESENTED BY: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocate with Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocate versus RAVINDER SINGH Represented by: .....Respondent Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate Judgment Reserved on: May 13, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: May 30, 2013 W.P.(C) 7344/2012 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI W.P.(C) Nos.4387/07, 1026/13 & 7344/12 Represented by: Ms.Sonia Arora, Advocate with Mr.Varun Gupta, Advocate versus MAHESH KUMAR & ORS. Represented by: .....Respondents Mr.Saurabh Ahuja, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 837/2010 BABU Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Imran Ahmed, Advocate. versus STATE Through: % ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP. Date of Decision: May 29, 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. Subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the judgment dated 15.12.2009 in Sessions Case No.26/2009 arising out of FIR No.170/2004, Police Station Khajuri Khas, Delhi. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. He was further sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default 15 days rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.2. The case of the prosecution emanates from the fact ...
Tag this Judgment!