Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-22-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :16. h DECEMBER, 2013 DECIDED ON :22. d JANUARY, 2014 + CRL.A. 768/2000 MADAN LAL Through : ....Appellant Mr.Jitendra Sethi, Advocate with Mr.Rajesh Kaushik & Mr.Hemendra Jailia, Advocates. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY) OF DELHI .Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Madan Lal (the appellant) questions the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 17.11.2000 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.499/96 arising out of FIR No.214/85 PS Subzi Mandi by which he was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. By an order dated 23.11.2000, he was awarded RI for three years with fine ` 5,000/-.2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 29.04.1985 at about 09.45 P.M. in front of house No.10621, Gali No.6, Andha Mugal, he inflicted injuries to Tara Chand in an attempt to murder him. During the course of investigatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-21-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:21. t January, 2014 + CRL.A. 712/2011 ILYASUDDIN Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. It is stated that human lust knows no bounds-if there is any truth in it, the present case is a glaring example of such lust. A tiny tot aged about 2-1/2 years has not only fallen a victim of the lust of the appellant but also lost his precious life resulting in conviction of the appellant u/s 377/302 IPC in Sessions Case No.134/2008 u/s 377/302 IPC, P.S. Kapashera and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years for offence punishable u/s 377 IPC and for imprisonment of life for offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and further directions not to release him before the expiry of 25 years. However, benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C was given to him.2. Succinctly s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-16-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :9. h DECEMBER, 2013 DECIDED ON :16. h JANUARY, 2014 + CRL.A. 397/2003 GULSHAN SHARMA & ORS. ....Appellants Through : Mr.R.K.Thakur, Advocate with Mr.B.Mishra, Advocate. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Gulshan Sharma (A-1), Harish Sharma (A-2) and Kamni Sharma (A-3) challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 03.03.2003 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.41/00 arising out of FIR No.543/00 PS Rajouri Garden whereby they were convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 05.03.2003, they were awarded RI for five years with fine ` 5,000/-, each. The prosecution case as projected in the charge-sheet is as follows :2. On 01.06.2000, Rajeev Taneja had gone at the residence of the accused persons to demand payment which A-1 had failed to pay being member of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-10-2014
..* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: January 10, 2014 CS(OS) 2252/2011 & I.A. No.14617/2011, I.A. No.18553/2011, I.A. No.20143/2011, I.A. No.20144/2011, I.A. No.20167/2011, I.A. No.20762/2011, I.A. No.448/2012 and I.A. No.15808/2012 INSTITUTE FOR INNER STUDIES & ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr. Amit Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Karan Mehra, Mr. Lalit Jhunjhunwala, Ms. Bahaar Dhawan & Ms. Chandni Goel, Advs. versus CHARLOTTE ANDERSON & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr. B.B. Sawhney, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Dipak Kumar Jena, Adv. & Ms. Minakshi Jena Ghosh, Adv. for D-1. Mr. Viplav Sharma, Adv. for D-2. Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, Adv. for D-3. Mr. Ajit Pudussery, Adv. with Mr. Dinesh Khurana, Adv. for D-11. Mr. Raghav Awasthi, Adv. for D-14. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The plaintiffs, (ten in numbers) have filed the present suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction alongwith...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Jan-07-2014
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. The applicant of this OA is an officer of Delhi and Andaman Nicobar Islands Civil Service (DANICS, in short), who is before us with the following prayers:- (a) direct the respondents to consider and promote the applicant on adhoc basis to the excadre post equivalent of DANICS w.e.f. 19.10.2011 and if in the event he is not found fit on the said date, then w.e.f. 14.11.2012 with all consequential benefits and grant all benefits consequent thereto to the applicant as being given to his juniors consequent to their promotion vide order dated 19.10.2011 or 14.11.2012 (as the case may be). (b) award costs of the proceedings and (c) pass any other order/direction which this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The applicant was initially appointed as Grade-II/Delhi Administration Subordinate Services (DASS, in short) on 14.08.1986. He was promoted to DASS Grade-I o...
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!