Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No. 3732/2013 & CM Nos. 6984-85/2013 31st May, 2013 MEENA PREMCHANDANI Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Nitin Thakur, proxy counsel for Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate. VERSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Advocate for R-2 and R3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition impugns the order dated 12.4.2013 of the Sindhi Academy, which is represented by respondent nos. 2 and 3. By the impugned order Sindhi Academy has appointed Mr. A.K.Hajelay, Advocate as an Enquiry Officer. Challenge is laid to the factum of appointment of a person who is not an employee of the organization-M/s Sindhi Academy as an Enquiry Officer and that the Enquiry Officer has to be a public servant which the Enquiry Officer is not.2. This case was argued yesterday and matter was listed today for further directions including on the asp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1976Delhi753
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) An Act to establish a Press Council for the purpose of preserving the freedom of the Press and oF maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India was enacted by Parliament, being Press Council Act 1965 (Act 34 of 1965), (hereinafter called the 'Act'). In furtherance or its object the Press Council is empowered to help newspapers and news agencies to maintain their independence. The Jurisdiction of the Press Council was invoked by two complaints under sections 12(2) (a) and (e) of the Act. What is the meaning and scope of the terms 'Freedom of Press', Independence of Newspapers' and the Independence of the Editor of a Newspaper' is one of the interesting questions which goes to the 'out of the jurisdiction of the Press Council that has arisen in this case. (2) On November 4, 1974. respondent 27, Shri D. R. Mankekar, addressed a complaint to the Press Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Press Council') under section 12(2)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The present petition by Prempal (Petitioner No. 1), his wife, Munni Devi (Petitioner No. 2) and his four children (Petitioners 3 to 6) claims compensation for the undue harassment that Prempal and his family have been subject to at the hands of the Delhi Police.The judgment of the learned ASJ2. The basis for the claim is a judgment dated 28th September 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), New Delhi in SC No. 29 of 2002 (State v. Prempal) acquitting the Petitioner of the offence under Section 376 IPC. In the process, the learned ASJ observed:This case is a glaring example that the poor in this country have no say and if they cry for justice, their cries fall on deaf ears. They are made to suffer and pay by their life and liberty, when they complain against police officials.3. After narrating the long history of the suffering undergone by Prempal, at the hands of the police for about 15 years in a number of false cases, including the one in which he was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$- * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:07. 08.2018 Judgment delivered on:12. 10.2018 CRL.A. No.223/2018 THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for State with Mr. Ashray Behura, Advocate with SI Raj Kumar, PS-KM Pur. Mr. Bharat S. Kumar and Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocates for Minor Victim. versus SUMIT KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sundeep Sehgal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. The State has preferred this appeal upon grant of leave to assail the judgment dated 15.12.2016 rendered by the learned ASJ-01, (Designated Special Court Under The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)) District South East, New Delhi, Shri Sunil Chaudhary in Case No.1434/16, Sessions Case No.93/13, arising out of FIR No.49/13, CRL.A.No.223/2018 Page 1 of 48 registered at PS Kotla Mubarakpur under Section 376IPC and 6 POCSO Act, 2012 again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2000ACJ109; 1998VIAD(Delhi)380; 1999CriLJ1099; 75(1998)DLT822; 1998(47)DRJ648
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a petition whereby the petitioners claim compensation from the respondents on account of the death of Sonu, husband of the first petitioner and son of the second petitioner, in police custody. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :- 2. One Deepak Deepu, an accused in case FIR No. 364/96 under sections 24/54/59 of the Arms Act, escaped from the custody of the police party belonging to police station Sarojini Nagar. A case FIR No. 374/96 under section 224 IPC was registered against him at Police Station Sarojini Nagar. It is not disputed that police party belonging to Police Station Sarojini Nagar picked up deceased Sonu, brother of accused Deepak, on August 29, 1996. On the next day, viz., August 30, 1996 the dead body of Sonu was brought to the casualty of Safdarjung Hospital by the staff of Police Station Sarojini Nagar. The body bore fifty-one injuries. These facts are not denied by the respondents. Rather they have been admitted in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:09. 05.2018 Judgment delivered on:02. 07.2018 + CRL.A. 334/2018 STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with SI Shailendra Kr. Singh, PS Gokulpuri versus HARGOVIND ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia and Mr. Jatin Teotia, Advocates (DHCLSC) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI JUDGMENT BY THE COURT1 The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 15.09.2016 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -01, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.44750/2015 titled as State vs. Hargovind, arising out of FIR No.36/2013 registered under Section 363/366/376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Gokalpuri, Delhi, whereby the accused/respondent was acquitted from the charges leveled against him. Crl.A.334/2018 Page 1 of 27 2. The facts in brief are th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 112(2004)DLT420; 2004(75)DRJ739
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. These writ petitions raise an important question of law having far-reaching consequences. The issue arises in relation to the acquisition of land for a public purpose, namely, Prem Nagar Station, which is part of Mass Rapid Transit System (in short 'the MRTS'), a Project undertaken by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (in short 'the DMRC'). There is no denying the fact that in Delhi land can be acquired by the Government, for public purpose, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the LA Act'). However, the Parliament, way back in the year 1978, also enacted another Legislation, namely, the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Metro Railways Act') and, this Act also contains the provisions for acquisition of land required for specific purpose viz. for the construction of Metro Railways or other works connected therewith. In the present case, land is acquired under the provisions of the LA Act for MR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)94TTJ(Delhi)692
1. These appeals by the assessees are directed against orders of CITs refusing to register these assessees under Section 12A of the IT Act.2. All the applicants, i.e., Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and various marketing committees at different places in Punjab, Haryana and Delhi were created under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (PAPMA). All the assessees were enjoying exemption from income-tax under Section 10(20) of IT Act which prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2002, w.e.f. 1st April, 2003, provided as under : "Section 10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included-- (20) the income of a local authority which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources" or from a trade or business carried on by it which accrues or arises from the supply of a com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1988Delhi599
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This appeal by the plaintiff is against an order of the sub-judge, 1st class, returning his plaint fix presentation to a proper court, which would mean the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). (2) The plaintiff on 19-9-86 instituted a suit against the respondent-defendant. Union of India, through the Secretary Ministry' of Health and Family Welfare, for recovery of Rs. 25,0001- because of certain tortious act of the defendant. On that account he alleged mental torture, loss of reputation- loss suffered by him on being lowered in the estimation of his colleagues and the loss suffered by him in defending certain disciplinary proceedings. The plaintiff had, in fact. assesses his damages at Rs. 1,00,000.00 but claimed only Rs 25,000.00 Plaintiff said he was an eve surgeon of renown and retired from Government service on 31-10-80. Re was to be paid his retirement benefits in the first week of November, 1980, but these were paid only on 29-10-81, The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28th July, 1989 passed by the Commandant of the CISF Force Unit-respondent no. 2 herein imposing the punishment of the removal from service; order dated 16th November, 1989 passed by the respondent no. 1 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the same as well as the order dated 26th/27th April, 1990 dismissing the representation filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought a declaration that the disciplinary proceedings held against him at the instance of respondent nos. 3 and 4 under the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 are wholly illegal, invalid, incompetent and that no disciplinary action could be taken by his employer, the Central Industrial Security Force (`CISF' hereafter) ...
Tag this Judgment!