Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-19-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.384/1998 Reserved on:13. h January, 2014 Date of Decision:19. h February, 2014 % OM PARKASH @ RAM KIRPAL Through ..... Appellant Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate. Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rajat Katyal, Additional Public Prosecutor. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J: Om Prakash, the appellant stands convicted under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) by the impugned judgment dated 30th May, 1998 arising out of FIR No.217/1991, police station Dabri. By order on sentence dated 30th May, 1998, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. For the offence under Section 324 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The sentences were to run concurr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Feb-19-2014
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A). 1. This case was filed by the applicant on 03.06.2013, and it was listed before the Vacation Bench on 04.06.2013, when notices were issued to the respondents on admission, and also on interim relief, and the case was ordered to be listed before the Vacation Bench on 07.06.2013. It may be noted here that though the Vacation Benches of this Tribunal are headed by single Members of this Tribunal, they exercise all the powers of Division Benches. 2. The Vacation Bench on 07.06.2013 considered the case of the applicant for grant of interim relief in detail, and disallowed the prayer for interim relief. 3. Thereafter, an MA No.1865/2013 came to be filed by the applicant on 19.07.2013, reply to which was also filed by the respondents, and the OA along with the MA, was heard in part firstly on 13.08.2013, and finally on 18.09.2013, and then reserved for orders. Voluminous documents of the relevant departmental records were submitted by the respondents, which have sinc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. L.P. NO.367/2012 STATE Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Narender Kumar Choudhry, APP. versus NARESH & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. B.S. Rana and Mr. Vijender Bhardwaj, Advocates. % Date of Decision : February 10, 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI JUDGMENT : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.CRL. L.P. NO.367/2012 1. Leave granted.2. Registry shall register and number the Appeal. Crl. A. No._______/2013 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 17.12.2011 in Sessions Case No.82A/2011 acquitting the Respondents Naresh, Suresh, Nirmala, Niyadher Singh and Harnandi for the offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and 304B read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the State has preferred the present Appeal.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the Appeal are that on 28.5.2005, on receipt of DD No.14A, ASI Ishwar Dutt (PW11) reached...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.199/2012 & CM No.21160/2012 (Stay) 10th February, 2014 % NAWAL KISHORE MEHTA @ NAWAL MEHTA ......Appellant Through: Mr. A.C.Bhasin and Mr. Amit Bhasin, Advocates. VERSUS SHASHI BANSAL @ BABLI Through: ...... Respondent None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This regular second appeal is filed by the appellant against the judgment of the first appellate court dated 1.2.2011 whereby the suit of the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed as being barred by limitation.2. The following substantial question of law was framed by this Court on 21.2.2013:Whether the findings arrived at by the trial court are perverse, if so, to what effect?.3. Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, injunction, recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.93,960/- etc on the ground that the original owner of the property being Flat No.BH-610C, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi was one Sh. Ram Sarup...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-06-2014
..... on the cot. the eldest son of sarla aged 20 years had slept on the roof. further deposition of pw-3 being that sarla and her husband were talking in nepali language and after that they both smoked cigarettes. later on sarla came and slept with pw-3 on the floor. after half an hour, dhan bahadur came to the floor .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Feb-05-2014
D.N. Panda, J. 1. Appeal No. E/141/2005, 143/2005 and 144/2005 is one batch of appeal which covers the period 1.12.1998 to 31.03.2004, arose out of common adjudication. The other batch of appeals No.972/2012, 988/2012 to 992/2012 covers the period April, 2004 to April 2006 arose out of common appeal order. 2. Revenue is in appeal registered as E/3044/2005. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEES 3. Ld. Counsel Shri B. L. Narasimhan appearing for assessees submits that there are 3 issues involved in the first batch of appeal registered as appeal Nos. 141/2005, 143/2005 and 144/2005 relating to the period 01.12.1998 to 31.03.2004. MANUFACTURE NIPPLE 4. The first issue in the first batch of appeals is whether complete feeding bottles cleared, manufacturing only nipple thereof and affixing/assembling thereto other components/accessories bought out from outside or manufactured by others, amounts to manufacture. 5. On behalf of appellant it was submitted that the nipple manufactured by the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-05-2014
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:- 5th February, 2014 + CRIMINAL APPEAL4131998 SUNIL KUMAR & ORS. ..... Appellant Through Mr. G.S. Sharma and Mr. R.A. Sharma, Advocates. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.The third appellant, namely, Om Prakash @ Bengali brother of the other two appellants Sunil Kumar and Om Babu @ Pappu expired during the pendency of the present appeal. The present appeal, therefore, has been pressed on behalf of Sunil Kumar and Om Babu @ Pappu.2. The two appellants along with the deceased appellant Om Babu @ Pappu by the impugned judgment dated 17th September, 1998 stand convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder of Tejpal at about 8.00-8.30 p.m. on 2nd October, 1992. By order of sentence dated 19th September, 1998, the two appellants have been sentenced to life ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: February 4, 2014 + RC.REV. 88/2012 & C.M. No.3384/2012 SUNIL SRIVASTAVA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Anil Misra, Adv. versus ARUN NAYYAR Through ..... Respondent Mr.Abhas Kumar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has assailed the eviction order dated 9th December, 2011, passed by Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in respect of two rooms alongwith kitchen, bathroom and toilet on the 2nd floor of property bearing No.12-A/38, WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as tenanted premises) which was let out to the petitioner by father of the respondent for residential purpose. The respondent alleged himself to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-04-2014
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 510/2014 & CM No.1024/2014 Date of Decision:4. h February, 2014 YOGENDRA NATH Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Prabodh Kumar, Adv. versus COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN ..... Respondent Through Mr. S. Rajappa, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) 1. The petitioner before us assails the order dated 28.05.2013 passed in O.A. No.4605/2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby the order dated 07.01.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan under Article 81(b) of the Education Code, terminating the services of the petitioner and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 21.07.2010 were sustained.2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are in narrow compass. The petitioner was employed by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) as a post graduate teacher (English) and at the relevant time, posted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % UOI & ANR. FAO No.134/2009 Through:3. d February, 2014 ......Appellants Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Adv. VERSUS RAM CHANDER DECD. THR. LR MAINA DEVI ...... Respondents Through: Ms. Pratima N. Chauhan, Adv. for R1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal has been filed by the Union of India under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 impugning the order of the Commissioner dated 7.11.2008 by which compensation was granted on account of injuries to a casual workman Sh. Ram Chander who was working as a gangman with the Railways. I may note that Sh. Ram Chander has since expired and now he is being represented by his legal heirs.2. The impugned orders in this case are dated 7.11.2008 and the subsequent order dated 19.1.2009 enforcing the impugned judgment dated 7.11.2008.3. Before me, counsel for the appellant has argued two aspects. First is that ...
Tag this Judgment!