Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-08-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:19. 03.2013 Judgment pronounced on:08. 05.2013 1. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.496/2011 ASHISH @ DANGER Through: Mr. Sumeet (DHCLSC). ..... Appellant Verma, Advocate versus STATE Through:2. ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1076/2010 NAZIM Through: Ms. Saahila (DHCLSC). ..... Appellant Lamba, Advocate versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. Ashish and Nazim have preferred these appeals against their conviction by the impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 30.03.2010 under Sections 302/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder of Vinod. By the order of sentence dated 31.03.2010, the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 and with fine of `5,000/-. In case of default for payment of fine o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-26-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:10. 04.2013 Judgment pronounced on:26. 04.2013 CRL.A. 1470/2011 VINOD Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP versus STATE CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.07.2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) for committing the murder of deceased Sanjay on 30.07.2007 by inflicting multiple stabs injuries. By order of sentence dated 15.07.2011, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of `2000/- has also been imposed. In default of payment of fine, the appellant is to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.2. We note that co-accused Kushal was declared juvenile by the Sessions Court vide order dated 0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1317/2012 Reserved on :17. h April, 2013 Date of Decision:26. h April, 2013 % RAM LAL ..... Appellant Through Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate. Versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P. VAISH SANJIV KHANNA, J:1. The appellant Ram Lal impugns his conviction vide judgment dated 15th October, 2009. under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder of Kalam on 6th September, 2006 at about 9.30-10.00 p.m. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, which, upon realization, is to be equally distributed amongst the family members of the deceased.2. There is ample evidence to show that Kalam died a homicidal death pursuant to injuries suffered by a sharp edged weapon. Dr. Sapna (PW-3), who was working as a Junior Resident at Safdarjung Hospital, had examined Kalam and had prepared his MLC (Ex.PW3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-23-2013
..... on hearing her noise, her uncle woke up and raised alarm. the neighbours apprehended the accused at the spot. she elaborated that the accused was apprehended by her uncle, one nepali, her brother-in-law and his wife. however, he succeeded to flee the spot. the prosecution did not examine any such relative or neighbour to lend credence to the prosecutrixs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 75/2011 Reserved on:9. h January, 2013 Date of Decision:8. h April, 2013 % RAM DASS ....Appellant Through Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Narendra Kumar Choudhary, Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh and Mr. Ajeet Singh, Advocates. Versus STATE Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SANJIV KHANNA, J.:1. The impugned judgment dated 18th November, 2010 convicts Ram Dass under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for murder of Sunil and Somnath, sons of Om Prakash, by causing injuries on them with firearm on 22 nd April, 2006. The appellant has been convicted under Section 323 IPC, for injuries on Om Prakash, by giving him a push, when he tried to intervene. By order of sentence dated 20th November, 2010 he has been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of paymen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-22-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:15. 02.2013 Judgment pronounced on :22. .03.2013 CRL.A.1348/2012 RADHEY SHYAM Through: .. Appellant Mr. G.K. Srivastava, Advocate Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Through: .. Respondent Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. The appellant Radhey Shyam, along with Raghu Raj and Giri Raj was sent up for trial under Sections 302/323/324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) for committing the murder of Hari Prasad @ Babu, the deceased.2. Vide judgement dated 17.07.2012, the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi convicted the appellant Radhey Shyam for offences under Section 302/324 IPC for stabbing the deceased with a knife and thereby committing murder. By virtue of order on sentence dated 31.07.2012, the appellant was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of `10,000/-was impose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No.83/2007 Date of decision :8. h March, 2013 % VED PARKASH KHARBANDA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Katyal and Mr. S.S. Katyal, Advs. versus VIMAL BINDAL Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. R.N. Oberoi, Ms. Ruchi Jain and Mr. Sarfaraz Ahmad, Advs. CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT 1 The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree for specific performance passed by the learned Trial Court. The appellant was the defendant and respondent was the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the appellant and the respondent shall be referred to as per their ranks in the plaint as the defendant and plaintiff respectively.2. Plaintiffs case The plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant on 21st August, 1997. The case set-up by the plaintiff in the plaint is as under:2.1 RFA No.83/2007 agreement with the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-07-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:31. 01.2013 Judgment pronounced on:07. 03.2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1200/2011 DHARMENDER KUMAR PAL Through: Ms.Anu Narula, Advocate. .. Appellant Versus STATE .. Respondent Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. Dharmender Kumar Pal impugns his conviction under Sections 302 and 392/397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) vide judgment dated 07.02.2011. By order dated 11.02.2011, the appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 392/397 IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment of two months. For the offence under Section 302 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for nine months. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Mar-06-2013
G. George Paracken: 1. All these five Original Applications are almost identical and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. Facts in them which are necessary for their adjudication are detailed hereunder:- OA 4219/2011 The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-1 show cause notice dated 14.3.2011 and the impugned Annexure A-2 order dated 11.5.2011 passed by the respondents. By the aforesaid show cause notice, he was called upon to explain as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police should not be cancelled. The reasons given for the same are as follows:- Scrutiny of your Application Form and Attestation Form filled up by you revealed that you had disclosed in the relevant columns of both the forms about the facts of your involvement in criminal case FIR No.39/2007, dated 15.02.2007 U/s 143/323/341 IPC, PS Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan) in which you had been acquitted by the Court vide order dated 04.12.2009 as both the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on : Mar-06-2013
V.K. Gupta, Member(Judicial): 1. This appeal by the appellant/OP of complaint case No.846/2006 is directed against the order dated 21.01.2009 passed by District Forum(New Delhi), directing the appellant to refund Rs.3300/- as fee, Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation charges. 2. In nut-shell the brief facts are that on 08.06.2006 a baby was born and the doctors directed the complainant for specific tests to ascertain the genitalai of the baby. The doctor further suggested following case. (i) Sodium, serum (ii) Potassium, serum (iii) Buccal simear/Barr Bodie (iv) Chromosome (Karyctype) 3. The baby was borne at Ram Chand Memorial Nursing Home, which advised that the tests to be conducted by the appellant/OP. Consequently on 09.06.2006 the baby was taken to the laboratory of the appellant for aforesaid tests which charged Rs.3300/-. Respondent/complainant was asking for the report and every time it was directed that the report will be given on 29.06.2006. On this date t...
Tag this Judgment!