Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

The District & Sessions Judge (Hqs) & Anr vs Narender Kumar on 1 April, 2022

Author: Rajiv Shakdher

Bench: Rajiv Shakdher, Sanjeev Narula

                           $~SB-1 & 2
                           *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                           +    LPA No.123/2019

                                  THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQS) & ANR... Petitioners
                                                  Through: Mr Neeraj Pal Singh, Adv.
                                                  versus
                                  NARENDER KUMAR                             ..... Respondent
                                                  Through: Mr Ankur Chhibber, Adv.
                           +      LPA No.124/2019

                                  THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQS) & ANR... Petitioners
                                                 Through: Mr Neeraj Pal Singh, Adv.
                                                 versus
                                  NEERAJ KUMAR SANGWAN                      ..... Respondent
                                                 Through: Mr Ankur Chhibber, Adv.
                                  CORAM:
                                  HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                                  HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
                                           ORDER

% 01.04.2022 [Physical Court Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request] CM APPL.14358/2021 in LPA No.123/2019 CM APPL.14691/2021 in LPA No.124/2019

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. REV.P. 72/2021 in LPA No.123/2019 REV.P. 79/2021, CM APPL.14690/2021 in LPA No.124/2019

2. We have heard Mr Ankur Chhibber, who appears on behalf of the review petitioners, briefly.

3. According to him, the review petitioner [i.e., Neeraj Kumar Sangwan, in LPA No.124/2019], committed only 12 mistakes and, therefore, 7 marks could not have been deducted. Similar grievance has been articulated qua LPA No.123/2019 and connected page 1 of 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:11.04.2022 18:06:05 the review petitioner i.e., Narender Kumar, in LPA No.123/2019. 3.1 It is Mr Chhibber's contention that, based on the circular dated 17.08.2010 [see page 86 of the case file], only one mark could have been deducted for every fifteen [15] mistakes.

4. The question, therefore, that arises here is: what is the meaning of the expression 'mistake' in the aforementioned circular? 4.1. We will hear Mr Chhiber further on this question on the next date.

5. List the matter on 22.07.2022.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J SANJEEV NARULA, J APRIL 1, 2022/tr LPA No.123/2019 and connected page 2 of 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:11.04.2022 18:06:05