Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-06-2018
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 139/2015 Decided on:6. h March, 2018 Reserved on:12. h February, 2018 ROHIT @ RAHUL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Prakash Gautam, Mr.Sachin Gautam, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP + AND CRL.A. 1541/2014 & Crl.M.A.6882/2017 SUNIL Through: Mr. K. Singhal, Mr. Prasanna, Advocates. ..... Appellant versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA % Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: JUDGMENT1 These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 22nd August, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II (North- Crl.A. 139/2015 & 1541/2014 Page 1 of 34 West) (ASJ), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.85/2013 arising out of FIR No.278/2011 registered at Police Station (PS) Adarsh Nagar convicting Rudramani @ Rukmani @ Guderia @ Rohit (Accused No.1 A-1') and both the Appellants Rohit Kumar @ Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-23-2018
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION NON-REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9382-9384 OF2017IEL SUPERVISORS' ASSOCIATION ETC. ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUS DUNCAN INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved 1. by the Judgment dated 24.02.2016 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.12468 of 2002 and other connected matters, by which the High Court remitted the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication.2. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that this is the second time the remittance is made and going by the order dated 14.09.2010 passed by this Court, the High Court could not have made a remand. The relevant portion of the order dated 14.09.2010 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 351-355 of 2006 and other connected matters, is reproduced below :- 2 In the circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the Labour Court has taken two different ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-19-2018
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 182/2002 SURESH KUMAR Reserved on: February 05, 2018 Decided on: February 19, 2018 ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Amicus Curiae and Mr. Rajeev Gaur Naseem, Advocate. versus STATE OF DELHI CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR Through: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP. ..... Respondent JUSTICE I. S. MEHTA JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th February 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.13 of 1999 in FIR No.433/1998 registered at Police Station (P.S.) Moti Nagar convicting the Appellant for the offence of the murder of his wife, Mamta (deceased), punishable under Section 302 IPC and the order on sentence of the same date sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for one year. Case of the prosecution 2. The prosecution case began with Head Constable (HC) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-19-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) No.922/2004 16th February, 2018 + % METRO EXPORTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Jayakar, Advocate with Mr. Ashwin Shete, Advocate, Mr. Javaid Muzaffar, Advocate, Mr. Harsh Moorjani, Advocate and Mr. Bharat Bagla, Advocate. Through: Mr. Mohan M. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ..... Defendant versus Through: Ms. Sunita Dutta, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This suit being CS(OS) No.922/2004 is filed by the plaintiff Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. The sole defendant in the suit is United India Insurance Co. Ltd. By the suit plaintiff seeks a money decree for a total amount of Rs.79,38,613.02/-, i.e principal amount of Rs.76,70,056/- with interest at 18%. The present suit was originally filed in the Mumbai High Court but was thereafter transferred to this Court in terms of the order of the Supreme Court dated 23.1.2004 in CS(OS) No.922/2004 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-19-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) No.922/2004 16th February, 2018 + % METRO EXPORTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Jayakar, Advocate with Mr. Ashwin Shete, Advocate, Mr. Javaid Muzaffar, Advocate, Mr. Harsh Moorjani, Advocate and Mr. Bharat Bagla, Advocate. Through: Mr. Mohan M. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ..... Defendant versus Through: Ms. Sunita Dutta, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This suit being CS(OS) No.922/2004 is filed by the plaintiff Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. The sole defendant in the suit is United India Insurance Co. Ltd. By the suit plaintiff seeks a money decree for a total amount of Rs.79,38,613.02/-, i.e principal amount of Rs.76,70,056/- with interest at 18%. The present suit was originally filed in the Mumbai High Court but was thereafter transferred to this Court in terms of the order of the Supreme Court dated 23.1.2004 in CS(OS) No.922/2004 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-19-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) No.922/2004 16th February, 2018 + % METRO EXPORTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Jayakar, Advocate with Mr. Ashwin Shete, Advocate, Mr. Javaid Muzaffar, Advocate, Mr. Harsh Moorjani, Advocate and Mr. Bharat Bagla, Advocate. Through: Mr. Mohan M. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ..... Defendant versus Through: Ms. Sunita Dutta, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This suit being CS(OS) No.922/2004 is filed by the plaintiff Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. The sole defendant in the suit is United India Insurance Co. Ltd. By the suit plaintiff seeks a money decree for a total amount of Rs.79,38,613.02/-, i.e principal amount of Rs.76,70,056/- with interest at 18%. The present suit was originally filed in the Mumbai High Court but was thereafter transferred to this Court in terms of the order of the Supreme Court dated 23.1.2004 in CS(OS) No.922/2004 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on : Feb-16-2018
CRL.A.No.100167/2014 1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE16H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018 PRESENT THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100167/2014 ... APPELLANT BETWEEN: MEERSAB S/O DAWALSAB JAKATI AGE:57. YEARS, OCC: KSRTC CLERK R/O. H. No.LIG21 URDU COLONY, AKHOL ROAD, NEAR COURT, NIPPANI DIST: BELAGAVI (BY SRI. NITIN R. BOLABANDI, ADVOCATE) AND:1. MOHAMMADSHIRAJ, S/O BABU KILLEDAR AGE:31. YEARS, OCC: MILITARY SERVICE R/O. GODHGERI, TQ: HUKKERI DIST: BELAGAVI. SMT.BIBIJAN W/O. BABU KILLEDAR AGE:51. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O. GODHGERI, TQ: HUKKERI DIST: BELAGAVI. APPASAB S/O. BABU KILLEDAR AGE:38. YEARS, OCC: NIL R/O. GODHGERI, TQ: HUKKERI DIST: BELAGAVI.2. 3.4.5. CRL.A.No.100167/2014 2 SMT.RESHMA W/O. APPASAB KILLEDAR AGE:27. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O. GODHGERI, TQ: HUKKERI DIST: BELAGAVI. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP: BY ITS HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. (THROUGH ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-16-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) No.922/2004 16th February, 2018 + % METRO EXPORTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Jayakar, Advocate with Mr. Ashwin Shete, Advocate, Mr. Javaid Muzaffar, Advocate, Mr. Harsh Moorjani, Advocate and Mr. Bharat Bagla, Advocate. Through: Mr. Mohan M. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ..... Defendant versus Through: Ms. Sunita Dutta, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This suit being CS(OS) No.922/2004 is filed by the plaintiff Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. The sole defendant in the suit is United India Insurance Co. Ltd. By the suit plaintiff seeks a money decree for a total amount of Rs.79,38,613.02/-, i.e principal amount of Rs.76,70,056/- with interest at 18%. The present suit was originally filed in the Mumbai High Court but was thereafter transferred to this Court in terms of the order of the Supreme Court dated 23.1.2004 in CS(OS) No.922/2004 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-08-2018
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 222/2002 BIJENDER STATE Through: Mr. Chetan Lokur, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr. Nitish Chaudhary, Advocate ..... Appellant versus Through: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP ..... Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA % ORDER0802.2018 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. This is an appeal directed against a judgment dated 1st September 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.15/1999 arising out of FIR No.982/1998 registered at Police Station (PS) Rajouri Garden convicting the Appellant of the offence under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife, Kanta. The appeal also impugns the order on sentence dated 3rd September, 2002 whereby he was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Case of the prosecution 2. At around 10.25 am in the morning of 1st November 1998, information was received in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-07-2018
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) No.32138 OF2015The Goa Foundation M/s Sesa Sterlite Ltd. & Ors. Versus WITH Petitioner Respondents SLP (C) NOS. 32699-32727 OF2015 WRIT PETITION (C) No.711 OF2015AND WRIT PETITION (C) No.720 OF2015JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J1 Rapacious and rampant exploitation of our natural resources is the hallmark of our iron ore mining sector - coupled with a total lack of concern for the environment and the health and well-being of the denizens in the vicinity of the mines. The sole motive of mining lease holders seems to be to make profits (no matter how) and the attitude seems to be that if the rule of law is required to be put on the backburner, so be it. Unfortunately, the S.L.P. (C) No.32138 of 2015 etc. Page 1 of 101 State is unable to firmly stop violations of the law and other illegalities, perhaps with a view to maximize revenue, but without appreciating the long term impact of this indiff...
Tag this Judgment!