Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-14-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % CRL.A. No.471/2003 Date of Decision:14. h March, 2014 + # ! CHARAN SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate versus $ STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP AND % # ! CRL.A.No.555/2003 ASHOK @ LALA .....Appellant Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate versus $ STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP AND % # ! CRL.A. No.781/2003 RADHEY SHYAM .....Appellant Through: Mr. Aman Nandrajog, Advocate versus $ THE STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP * CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P. VAISH JUDGMENT P.K. BHASIN, J: By way of these appeals the three appellants have assailed the judgment dated 22nd April, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge holding all of them guilty of committing murder of one Raj Bansi on 17th May, 1999 as well as the order dated 14th May, 2003 whereby they have been directed to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-14-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % CRL.A. No.471/2003 Date of Decision:14. h March, 2014 + # ! CHARAN SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate versus $ STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP AND % # ! CRL.A.No.555/2003 ASHOK @ LALA .....Appellant Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate versus $ STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP AND % # ! CRL.A. No.781/2003 RADHEY SHYAM .....Appellant Through: Mr. Aman Nandrajog, Advocate versus $ THE STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP * CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P. VAISH JUDGMENT P.K. BHASIN, J: By way of these appeals the three appellants have assailed the judgment dated 22nd April, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge holding all of them guilty of committing murder of one Raj Bansi on 17th May, 1999 as well as the order dated 14th May, 2003 whereby they have been directed to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-14-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % CRL.A. No.471/2003 Date of Decision:14. h March, 2014 + # ! CHARAN SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate versus $ STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP AND % # ! CRL.A.No.555/2003 ASHOK @ LALA .....Appellant Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate versus $ STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP AND % # ! CRL.A. No.781/2003 RADHEY SHYAM .....Appellant Through: Mr. Aman Nandrajog, Advocate versus $ THE STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP * CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P. VAISH JUDGMENT P.K. BHASIN, J: By way of these appeals the three appellants have assailed the judgment dated 22nd April, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge holding all of them guilty of committing murder of one Raj Bansi on 17th May, 1999 as well as the order dated 14th May, 2003 whereby they have been directed to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
Decided on : Mar-14-2014
On appeal from: Western Cape High Court (Louw J sitting as court of first instance): The appeal is upheld with costs and the order of the court below is altered to one dismissing the special plea of prescription with costs. JUDGMENT Wallis JA(Navsa, Shongwe and Theron JJA and Legodi AJA concurring) [1] Mr Malcolm was born on 2[] J[] 1[]. In 1993, when he was six years old, he was diagnosed with Stage 1 Hodgkin's Lymphoma. He was admitted to the Red Cross Children's Hospital in Cape Town for treatment. He alleges that whilst he was in hospital undergoing treatment there was an outbreak of Hepatitis B at the hospital and in October 1994 he was diagnosed with that disease. He ascribes his infection with Hepatitis B to negligence on the part of the hospital and its staff and seeks by this action to recover damages. His claim was met with a special plea of prescription, which Louw J upheld. The appeal is with his leave. [2] In terms of s11(d) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 (the Act) the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-13-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + DEATH SENTENCE REFERENCE NO.6/2013 STATE THROUGH REFERENCE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms. Swati Goswami and Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocates. versus RAM SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocate for Akshay Kumar and Vinay Sharma. Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate for Mukesh and Pawan Kumar Gupta. + CRL. APP. NO.1398/2013 PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA Through: versus STATE Through: + ..... Appellant Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. ..... Respondent Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms. Swati Goswami and Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocates. CRL. APP. NO.1399/2013 MUKESH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms. Swati Goswami and Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocates. DEATH SENTENCE REFERENCE NO.6/2013, + CRL. APP. NO.1414/2013 VINAY SHARMA AND AN...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-13-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : October 07, 2013 DECIDED ON : March 13, 2014 + CRL.A. 358/2006 P.P.SINGH Through : ..... Appellant Mr.R.N.Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Puneet Mittal, Mr.Ankit Goyal, Mr.Ankur Aggarwal & Mr.Nitin Sharma, Advocates. Versus C.B.I. Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Manoj Ohri, Spl.P.P. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. legality Dr.P.P.Singh (Prem Pal Singh-the appellant) challenges the and correctness of a judgment dated 06.05.2006 in R.C.No.79(A)/96/CBI/ACB/N.Delhi, CC No.133/01 of learned Special Judge, Delhi by which he was held guilty under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short PC Act). By an order on sentence dated 08.05.2006, he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine `5,000/- under Section 7 and rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine `7,000/- under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act. Both the substantive sentences were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-13-2014
CWP No.4751 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4751 of 2014 Date of decision:13. 03.2014 M/s Auto Dynamic Corporation Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others ..Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HONBLE MS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY Present: Mr.Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.1. Challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing Show Cause Notice dated 10.3.2014, Annexure P.1 whereby respondent No.2 has called upon the petitioner to show cause to respondent No.3 as to why period of six months prescribed under section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short, the Act.) be not further extended for six months.2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is engaged in the business of trading of imported automobile parts. It was directly importing automobile parts and selli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-13-2014
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 7/9.1.2010 issued by the respondent no.3 University vide Annexure-A.) (Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-E dated 1.6.2011 issued by the first respondent and also Annexure-F issued by the 4th respondent dated 13.06.2011 for the reasons stated at para 4 to this writ petition.) (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-F, i.e., endorsement dated 5.9.2011 issued by the first respondent i.e., Karnataka State Law University and etc;) (Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Admission Notification dated 1.6.2011 marked as Annexure-B, in so far as explanation to Rule-2(c) is concerned, award costs, pass such other writ or direction.) (Prayer: This Writ Pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-13-2014
Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the grounds of decision of the court): 1. These were two related appeals brought by the accused person (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant") and the Public Prosecutor, respectively, following a trial and the finding of guilt by the High Court judge ("the Judge") against the Appellant on three sexual offence charges and the acquittal of the Appellant of a single charge of impersonation under s 170 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) ("s 170" and "the Code" respectively). CCA No 7 of 2013 ("CCA 7") was the Appellant's appeal against the convictions found against him as well as the sentences imposed. CCA No 8 of 2013 ("CCA 8") was the Public Prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal. 2. At the conclusion of the hearing, we dismissed CCA 7 but allowed CCA 8 and convicted the Appellant on the charge of impersonation. We now give our reasons. The Charges 3. The charges which were brought against the Appellant were as follows: 1st Charge: [You, the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-12-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD WEDNESDAY, THE12H DAY OF MARCH201421ST PHALGUNA, 1935 CRL.A.No. 390 of 2004 ( ) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN Crl.L.P. 57/2004 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DATED2101-2004 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC7322001 of J.M.F.C.-I, KANJIRAPPALLY, DATED2407-2003 APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:- --------------------- NAUFAL AZEEZ, PANCHAYAPARAMBIL, PALAMPRA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:- --------------------------- 1. MADHU AGED25 LEATHER PARK, BUS STAND ROAD, ERUMELY, RESIDING AT KULATHINKAL HOUSE, THUMARAM PARA, KANNIMALA P.O. ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.JASMINE. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1203-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kvs/- A.HARIPRASAD, J.= = ...
Tag this Judgment!