Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-30-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:30. 01.2014 + Crl.Appeal No.392/2010 JAI YODHAD Through: .Appellant Mr. Ajay Verma and Mr. Prateek, Advs. Versus STATE Through: .Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(Oral) On 8.7.2008, SI Sunil Jain of Narcotic Branch received secret information that a person named Jai, resident of Nepal, who is engaged in bringing Ganja from Nepal to Delhi and selling the same, in association with one Norbu, will meet Norbu between 6.30 pm to 7 pm on that date at Railway Crossing, Shalimar Village and a huge quantity of Ganja would be supplied. The aforesaid information was brought by SI Sunil Jain to the notice of Inspector M.L. Sharma of Narcotic Branch and he also produced the informer before him. After making inquiries from the informer, Inspector M.L. Sharma brought the information to the notice of the concerned ACP Mr. M.S. Dabas on telephone. The said ACP directed him to conduc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-29-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. APP. NO.371/1999 BANWARI LAL Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Avninder Singh, Advocate. Versus STATE OF DELHI Through: % ..... Respondent Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP Date of Decision : January 29, 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI JUDGMENT : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction under Section 302 IPC and the consequent sentence of simple imprisonment for life imposed upon the Appellant in addition to fine of ` 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.2. The criminal law machinery was set in motion at 10.18 p.m. on 25.3.1992 on receipt of DD No.17A (Ex.PW7/A) at Police Station Geeta Colony to the effect that information was received from PCR about the burning of a lady at a house near Rani Garden, Shiv Mandir. On the same day, at about 10.50 p.m., another information was received from JPN Hospital given b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-29-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:29. h January, 2014 + CRL.A. 393/1998 SOHAN LAL @SURESH @ SODA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14th August, 1998 and 17th August, 1998 in Sessions Case No.82/1997 arising out of FIR No.484/1997 u/s 302/34 IPC registered with PS Seelampur whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.25000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 36 months. In case of deposit of fine, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is to be paid to the father of the deceased while the remaining amount shall go the State as cost of the proceedings.2. The facts and circumstances giving ris...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Jan-29-2014
1. This Application is filed under Section 18 (1) read with Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. M/s Riverside Resort Pvt. Ltd., the Applicant, herein, is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The Applicant, for the purpose of brevity, will be hereafter referred to as œM/s Riverside Resort?. 2. The Application is mainly filed against the construction of a crematorium activities of Respondent No.1, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC). Respondent No.2, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB), and Respondent No.4, Collector, Pune are the formal parties. Respondent No.3- M/s Yashak Associates, is a building contractor, in whose favour tender work is allegedly given by the PCMC for construction of the crematorium in question. The Respondent No.5, Irrigation Department, is also a formal party, but seems to have been joined, because it is supervisory authority over flood line areas of the rivers. 3. From the pleadings of the Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-27-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :21.01.2014. Judgment delivered on:- 27.01.2014. CRL.A. 34/2006 SHIKSHA Through: versus STATE Through: + ..... Appellant Mr.Rajesh Khanna, Advocate. ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP along with SI Daya Kishan. CRL.A. 128/2006 SANJEEV TYAGI @ CHIDDI BOSE ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Rajesh Khanna, Advocate. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP along with SI Daya Kishan. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 The appellants before this Court are a mother and son. Shiksha is the mother and Sanjeev is her son. They are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2005 wherein they had been convicted under Sections 307/325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Accused Sanjeev Tyagi had been convicted separately under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Vide order of sentence dated 24.12.2005, each of them had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.383/1998 Reserved on:10. h January, 2014 Date of Decision:24. h January, 2014 % CHANDER PAL SINGH ..... Appellant Through Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate. Versus STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.450/1998 ANGREJ SINGH ..... Appellant Through Mr. L.K. Passi, Advocate. Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.: The appellants Chander Pal Singh and Angrej Singh by the impugned judgment dated 19th August, 1998 stand convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for murder of Harvinder Kataria on 13th May, 1994 at about 9.30 P.M. According to the prosecution, Chander Pal Singh had inflicted injury on the chest of the deceased with a kripan, while Angrej Singh, the conductor restrained h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL3241998 Reserved on:9. h January, 2014 Date of Decision:24. h January, 2014 % RESHAM SINGH .... Appellant Through Mr. Dinesh Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate. versus STATE . Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP with SI Sammarpal Singh, P.S Kalkaji. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.Appellant Resham Singh by the impugned judgment dated 18 th July, 1998 stands convicted under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short). By impugned order of sentence dated 20th July, 1998, he has been convicted for imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default he has to undergo simple imprisonment for four months for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, he has to undergo simple imprisonment Crl. A. 324/1998 for three Section 394 IP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: January 21, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on: January 24, 2014 W.P.(C) 6418/2001 OMKAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THRU LRS .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Vaneessa Singh, Advocate with Ms.Sadhvi Shashi, Advocate W.P.(C) 6419/2001 BRAHAM PRAKASH SINGH .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Sachin Datta, Advocate with Mr.Vineet Tayal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Since common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in the two above captioned writ petitions, they were heard together and hence are being decided by a singular order. Albeit pursuant to two separate charge sheets issued to them and inquiry proceedings being separate, the indictment against the petitioners and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: January 21, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on: January 24, 2014 W.P.(C) 6418/2001 OMKAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THRU LRS .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Vaneessa Singh, Advocate with Ms.Sadhvi Shashi, Advocate W.P.(C) 6419/2001 BRAHAM PRAKASH SINGH .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Sachin Datta, Advocate with Mr.Vineet Tayal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Since common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in the two above captioned writ petitions, they were heard together and hence are being decided by a singular order. Albeit pursuant to two separate charge sheets issued to them and inquiry proceedings being separate, the indictment against the petitioners and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: January 23, 2014 + CS(OS) No.2617/2010 MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLE PVT. LTD...... Plaintiff Through Mr.Aman Taneja, Advocate versus DHARA DAIRY FOODS CO. ..... Respondent Through Defendant is ex-parte CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The defendant is ex-parte. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, Mother Diary Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd, for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc. against the defendant.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is the registered proprietor of the well known trademark DHARA and has various registrations for the said mark under Class 29. The details of the said registrations in respect of the mark DHARA have been given in Para 13 of the plaint. Some of them are: registration in respect of DHARA Refined Vegetable Oil under class 29 bearing registration N...
Tag this Judgment!