HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE, J
ANUJ AHUJA – Appellant
Versus
SUMITRA MITTAL – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Banerjee, J.
1. By way of the present petitions under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973), the petitioner, Anuj Ahuja, seeks quashing of two impugned order(s) both dated 27.01.2025 passed in C.A. No.138/2024 and C.A. No.139/2024 entitled “Anuj Ahuja vs. Rajesh Mittal”, [Hereinafter referred as “impugned orders] by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi, [Hereinafter referred to as “learned ASJ]. Vide the two impugned order(s), the learned ASJ dismissed the application(s) of the petitioner seeking waiver of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount to suspend both the orders of sentence both dated 08.07.2024 in Ct. Cas. No.2196/2020 and Ct. Cas. No.2197/2020 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi, [Hereinafter referred to as “learned MM], under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881, [Hereinafter referred as “NI Act]
2. Pithily put, the disputes inter se petitioner and respondent(s) emanate from two financial transactions between them, however, since the factual assertions and the case of the parties, including the legal issues a
Jamboo Bhandari vs M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Surinder Singh Deswal @ Colonel S.S. Deswal & Ors. vs. Virender Gandhi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.