Court : Delhi
* 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
dev satya Digitally signed by dev satya DN: c=IN, o=delhi high court, ou=delhi high court, postalCode=110003, st=delhi, cn=dev satya Date:2013. 11.01 12:54:35 +05'30' $~17-18, 20-28, 30-85 & 125 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.No.338/2009 Date of decision :11. h October, 2013 % SATYA PRAKASH ..... Petitioner versus STATE ..... Respondent WITH Crl.Rev.P.Nos.289/2011, 457/2013, 286/2007, 585/2007, 692/2007, 740/2007, 744/2007, 67/2008, 613/2008, 646/2008, 678/2008, 20/2009, 83/2009, 348/2009, 373/2009, 412/2009, 440/2009, 442/2009, 355/2010, 432/2010, 695/2010, 14/2011, 281/2011, 395/2011, 430/2011, 513/2011, 35/2012, 63/2012, 69/2012, 96/2012, 108/2012, 121/2012, 137/2012, 185/2012, 200/2012, 236/2012, 313/2012, 387/2012, 424/2012, 463/2012, 492/2012, 556/2012, 590/2012, 608/2012, 651/2012, 669/2012, 684/2012, 279/2013, 407/2013, 414/2013, 454/2013, 470/2013 & 119/2012 Present :554. 2007, 581/2008, 321/2009, 257/2010, 339/2011, 67/2012, 155/2012, 402/2012, 606/2012...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Govt. of NCT of Delh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Shyam Sharma, Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken: 1. All these five Original Applications are almost identical and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. Facts in them which are necessary for their adjudication are detailed hereunder:- OA 4219/2011 The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-1 show cause notice dated 14.3.2011 and the impugned Annexure A-2 order dated 11.5.2011 passed by the respondents. By the aforesaid show cause notice, he was called upon to explain as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police should not be cancelled. The reasons given for the same are as follows:- Scrutiny of your Application Form and Attestation Form filled up by you revealed that you had disclosed in the relevant columns of both the forms about the facts of your involvement in criminal case FIR No.39/2007, dated 15.02.2007 U/s 143/323/341 IPC, PS Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan) in which you had been acquitted by the Court vide order dated 04.12.2009 as both the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: January 28, 2013 + CS(OS) No.1439/1991 TEXMACO LIMITED Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Sumit Sen, Adv. versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Defendants Through Mr.V.P.Dewan, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the abovementioned suit for the recovery of `46,62,917.81/- against the defendants, alleging that the said amount is due and payable to the plaintiff under a contract relating to the work which includes a sum of `32,96,972/- on account of reimbursement of sales tax illegally withheld by the defendants and a further amount of `13,65,945.81/is also payable by the defendants as per details mentioned in para 16 of the plaint.2. Before referring the facts made by the plaintiff in its plaint, there are certain admitted relevant facts and events which are admitted, the same are: (a) On 8th January, 1983, a Contract Agreement bearing not NH/CPG/MC/S-G/2 AGMT for design, f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The Petitioner is a 12 year old victim in case FIR No. 04/2009 under Section 376/342 IPC registered at PS Neb Sarai. On registration of FIR, an inquiry for age determination of Respondent No.2 was conducted and Respondent No.2 was found to be juvenile at the time of committing the alleged offence. Thus, an enquiry was conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board-II. The proceedings in the inquiry qua Respondent No.2 culminated on 8th July, 2011, however the Petitioner is not aware of its final outcome. The Petitioner was orally informed that Respondent No.2 was found to have committed the offence and was directed to be placed in the special home for the period he had already undergone, which, according to the Petitioner, is around 2 to 3 months. The Petitioner filed an application before the Juvenile Justice Board seeking certified copy of the order dated 8th July, 2011 so that she could exercise her right of appeal/ revision against the said order. Learned Juvenile Justice Board vide im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The present judgment will dispose of three writ petitions filed by the Indian Olympic Association (the petitioner in W.P. 876/2007, hereafter referred to as "the IOA"), the Sanskriti School, petitioner in W.P. 1212/2007, (hereafter referred to as "the school") and the Organizing Committee of the Commonwealth Games, 2010, Delhi (petitioner in W.P. 1161/2008, hereafter referred to as "the Games Committee"). The common question involved is as to the applicability of the Right to Information Act (hereafter referred to as "the Act"), with broad reference to whether the writ petitioners are "Public Authorit(ies)" within the meaning of the term under Section 2(h) of the said Act. Petitioners facts and contentions:2. Briefly the facts of the case in W.P. 876/2007, filed by the IOA are that the IOA is the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 160(2009)DLT775
Kailash Gambhir, J.The miracle is not to fly in air or to travel to the moon, but to walk on the earth', says a Chinese proverb.1. The increase in vehicular traffic alongwith the population of Delhi has grown much faster since the time Maruti Company has flooded the market with their brand of cars for the middle class of the society. Although the capital of the country is dominated by the middle and lower class, but the presence of rich and affluent is no less visible when one looks at the roads of Delhi to find large number of high class luxurious cars, including the Mercedes and BMWs. The traditional mode of travelling by tangas, bicycles, rickshaws, two wheelers is coming to gradual extinct except in the interiors of some localities.2. Except for a few hours between midnight to dawn, one cannot see even a patch of earth but vehicles and vehicles either running or stranded in traffic jams on Delhi roads. This ever increasing vehicular explosion in traffic is due to the rapid increase...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(2)CTLJ179(Del)
Gita Mittal, J.1. The present case is a unique case where one governmental authority is complaining of an illegality by a statutory authority. Grievance has been made by the Public Works Department (hereinafter PWD) that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter MCD) has entered into a contract which is in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in several judgments and now by a Division Bench of this Court as well.Interesting questions of law have arisen for consideration in the present case. It is not only the law laid down by the Apex Court but also statutory provisions which would require to be considered and also the public policy which is involved.2. It is said that a great city is defined by its history and its people. Delhi is one such city. Known as a city of great resilience, it has been witness to a number of upheavals, battles and natural calamities in its long history, but has always emerged victorious. traveling through Delhi in the 1930s, Robert Byron, a t...
Tag this Judgment!