Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (2.67 seconds)
Documents citing Rajeev Kumar Goyal @ Raj Kumar Goyal vs State Through C.B.I. on 8 August, 2014

State Through Cbi V. Bibianus Toppo & Ors vs Dr. Sukumar on 1 December, 2015

(ii) Now coming to the judgement title Rajiv Kumar Goyal @ Raj Kumar Goyal Vs State through CBI in Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 2008 decided on August 08, 2014 by the High Court of Delhi. I have perused the said judgement carefully. To my mind, the said judgement is not helpful to the accused in any manner as the facts involved therein were totally different from the facts of the case in hand. In the said matter, CBI failed to establish whether the documents were already missing when the appellant had passed the claims in favour of fictitious persons or the documents were removed later on and the same is clear from para 28 which reads as under :
Delhi District Court Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Through Cbi V. Bibianus Toppo & Ors vs Dr. Sukumar on 1 August, 2016

(ii) Now coming to the judgement title Rajiv Kumar Goyal @ Raj Kumar Goyal Vs State through CBI in Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 2008 decided on August 08, 2014 by the High Court of Delhi. No doubt, in the said judgment, the workload was considered as one of the grounds at the time of acquitting the accused who was a public servant. But it was not the sole ground to acquit the accused. I have perused the said judgement carefully. To my mind, the said judgement is not helpful to the accused in any manner as the facts involved therein were totally different from the facts of the case at hand.
Delhi District Court Cites 78 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

25 vs Chetan Sharma & Others. Page No.: 25 Of ... on 19 November, 2015

193. The perusal of the judgments of Rajeev Kumar Goyal @ Raj Kumar Goyal V. State through CBI(supra) and John Pandian V. State(supra) as relied by the accused M. C. Aggarwal shows that the decisions of same are of no help to him as in the present case the abuse of the official position by accused M. C. Aggarwal in criminal conspiracy with other accused persons, right from the initiation of the transactions commencing from inspection report dated 26.05.2007 CBI Vs. Chetan Sharma & others. Page No.: 149 of 173 :150: CBI Case No.40/11 Ex.PW21/B, opening of account of M/s Royal Sales Corporation by introduction of fictitious account of M/s Sonata Impex, submission of collateral securities on the basis of fake, forged & fabricated documents, preparation of false site visit reports by accused M. C. Aggarwal, sanction of CC Limit to M/s Royal Sales Corporation, enhancement of CC Limit, has been clearly proved.
Delhi District Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Through Cbi V. Bibianus Toppo & Ors vs Dr. Sukumar on 24 December, 2016

(ii) Now coming to the judgement title Rajiv Kumar Goyal @ Raj Kumar Goyal Vs State through CBI in Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 2008 decided on August 08, 2014 by the High Court of Delhi. No doubt, in the said judgment, the workload was considered as one of the grounds at the time of acquitting the accused who was a public servant. But it was not the sole ground to acquit the accused. I have perused the said judgement carefully. To my mind, the said judgement is not helpful to the accused in any manner as the facts involved therein were totally different from the facts of the case at hand. In the said matter, the accused was acquitted on multiple grounds including that CBI failed to establish whether the documents from the files were already missing when the appellant had passed the claims in favour of fictitious persons or the documents were removed later on and the same is clear from para 28 which reads as under :-
Delhi District Court Cites 78 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reported As K. Radhai vs . Cbi Cochin Unit (2007) 10 Scc 582 And on 31 January, 2018

7. The Ld. Counsel referred to judgment of Supreme Court reported as K. Radhai Vs. CBI Cochin Unit (2007) 10 SCC 582 and judgment of the High Court reported as Rajeev Kumar Goyal @ Raj Kumar Goyal and Ors. Vs. State through CBI 2014 VII AD (Delhi) 667 in order to convey that sentence of less than three years imprisonment should be imposed for the offences under Section 468,471 and 420 IPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Aijaz vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 23 April, 2018

(17) Recently also, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had an opportunity to deal with a similar issue in the case of Rajiv @ Raj Vs. State in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 854/2011  which was directed against the order of the   Ld.   CMM   dismissing   the   application   for   release   of   vehicle   on Superdari wherein it was observed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar   vide   judgment   dated   17.09.2015   that   the   said   order dismissing   the   application   for   Superdari   was   an   interlocutory order   against   which   no   revision   would   lie   and   hence   the   Writ Petition (Crl.) was maintainable.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunder Singh vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 23 April, 2018

(18) Recently also, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had an opportunity to deal with a similar issue in the case of  Rajiv @ Raj Vs. State  in  Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 854/2011 which was directed against the order of the Ld. CMM dismissing the application for release of vehicle on Superdari wherein  it  was   observed  by  Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Ashutosh   Kumar vide judgment dated 17.09.2015 that the said order dismissing the application for Superdari was an interlocutory order against which no   revision   would   lie   and   hence   the   Writ   Petition   (Crl.)   was maintainable.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kashmir vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 23 April, 2018

(18) Recently also, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had an opportunity to deal with a similar issue in the case of Rajiv @ Raj Vs. State in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 854/2011 which was directed against the order of the Ld. CMM dismissing the application for release of vehicle on Superdari wherein it   was  observed  by  Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice Ashutosh  Kumar vide judgment dated 17.09.2015 that the said order dismissing the application for Superdari was an interlocutory order against which no   revision   would   lie   and   hence   the   Writ   Petition   (Crl.)
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Faruque Khan vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 23 April, 2018

(17) Recently also, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had an opportunity to deal with a similar issue in the case of  Rajiv @ Raj Vs. State  in Writ   Petition   (Crl.)   No.   854/2011  which   was   directed   against   the order of the Ld. CMM dismissing the application for release of vehicle on   Superdari   wherein   it   was   observed   by  Hon'ble   Mr.   Justice Ashutosh   Kumar  vide  judgment   dated  17.09.2015  that  the  said order   dismissing   the   application   for   Superdari   was   an interlocutory order against which no revision would lie and hence the Writ Petition (Crl.) was maintainable.
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next