Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Vikas Chaudhary vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 11 August, 2010

Vikash Chaudhary vs Govt. Of Nctd on 11 September, 2015

In view of the above notices issued by DSSSB, which were not only uploaded on its website, but also published in the national dailies, we do not find any substance in the contention of the applicant that DSSSB did not give any intimation to him to fill the requisite particulars in OARS and upload his recent photograph and signature on the website of DSSSB, i.e., www.dsssbonline.nic.in. In terms of the said notices, as the applicant failed to fill the necessary particulars in OARS and upload his recent photograph, signature, etc., on the website of the DSSSB, he was treated as a non- interested candidate and his candidature stood cancelled. Thus, he did not have a right to appear in the written examination held for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector, Transport Department. Furthermore, when he was capable of knowing about the aforesaid Advertisement in May 2012, the list of candidates published in August 2014, and the notification about the date and time of the written examination, he cannot be allowed to take the plea that he did not receive any information from DSSSB or that he did not have any knowledge about the requirement of filling the necessary particulars in Page 9 of 12 OA 4557-14 10 Vikash Chaudhary v. GNCTD & ors OARS and uploading his photograph, signature, etc., on the website of the DSSSB. His conduct rather shows that he failed to fill the necessary particulars in OARS and upload his photograph, signature, etc., on the DSSSB's website due to his sheer negligence and carelessness. In the above view of the matter, it cannot be held that the DSSSB has wrongly denied consideration of the applicant's candidature.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vikas vs . The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 January, 2015

Accordingly, revision petition is allowed and order of the ld.trial court directing issuance of process under section 82 Cr.P.C.against revisionist/accused is hereby set aside with the direction to revisionist/accused to join the investigation as and when required by the IO/SHO and to appear before the ld.trial court on the date already CR No. 02/15 4/5 CR No. 02/15 Vikas Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi fixed there.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Virendra Khanna vs State Of Karnataka By: on 12 March, 2021

23. The exercise of jurisdiction by constitutional courts must be guided by contemporaneous realities/existing realities on the ground. Judicial power should not be allowed to be entrapped within inflexible parameters or guided by rigid principles. True, the judicial function is not to legislate but in a situation where the call of justice and that too of a large number who are not parties to the lis before the Court, demands expression of an opinion on a silent aspect of the statute, such void must be filled up not only on the principle of ejusdem generis but on the principle of imminent necessity with a call to the legislature to act promptly in the matter. 5.19. He relied on the decision of the Apex court in S u d h ir Chaudhary v. State (NCT of D e lh i) , ( 2016) 8 SCC 307, more particularly para 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 thereof which are hereunder reproduced for easy reference:
Karnataka High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 6 - S Govindaraj - Full Document

Abhay Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 February, 2022

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application u/s 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act of applicant- Abhay Singh Thakur because at the time of incident in the year 2015, the prosecutrix and applicant Abhay Singh Thakur were minor and as such the trial of the applicant should be by the Juvenile Justice Board in view of Sections 5 & 6 of the Juvenile Justice Act. He submits that the trial Court has also committed an illegality by wrongly applying the principles of law laid down in Vikas Choudhary vs. State (NCT Delhi), 2010 8 SCC 508 as in the said matter, the date of commission of the offence was 19.01.2003 and at that point of time, the Act of 2015 was not in force. Even as per the said judgment, the last date of commission of offence is to be taken into account. If this analogy is applied in the present case, the FIR was lodged on 09.08.2021 and in the year 2021 both the applicant and the prosecutrix became major. As such, the judgment in the matter of 4 Vikas Choudhary (surpa) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ajay Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 February, 2022

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application u/s 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act of applicant- Abhay Singh Thakur because at the time of incident in the year 2015, the prosecutrix and applicant Abhay Singh Thakur were minor and as such the trial of the applicant should be by the Juvenile Justice Board in view of Sections 5 & 6 of the Juvenile Justice Act. He submits that the trial Court has also committed an illegality by wrongly applying the principles of law laid down in Vikas Choudhary vs. State (NCT Delhi), 2010 8 SCC 508 as in the said matter, the date of commission of the offence was 19.01.2003 and at that point of time, the Act of 2015 was not in force. Even as per the said judgment, the last date of commission of offence is to be taken into account. If this analogy is applied in the present case, the FIR was lodged on 09.08.2021 and in the year 2021 both the applicant and the prosecutrix became major. As such, the judgment in the matter of 4 Vikas Choudhary (surpa) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Siddharth Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2023

8. In contrast, counsel for State has opposed the submissions made by Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 3/2/2023 11:52:00 AM 5 counsel for the applicant and submitted that the assessment was made by the Board not only on the basis of age of juvenile at the time of committing crime but also on the fact that crime was continued from 2019 till 2021. The juvenile on the last date of committing crime has attained the age under which trial can be conducted treating them to be an adult and order has rightly been passed by the Board and approved by the Sessions Judge that juvenile nos.1 to 3 should be tried treating them an adult and as such matter be transferred to the competent court of jurisdiction. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court passed in case of Vikas Choudhary Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & another reported in 2010 (8) SCC 508, in which the Supreme Court has considered this aspect that the age of juvenile should not be determined considering the date of incident. He submits that since trial was continued, therefore, the age can be considered taking note of the last date of committing crime and as per the facts of the case it has rightly been observed that juvenile Nos.1, 2 and 3 have attained the age under which trial can be conducted treating them to be an adult, therefore, the order is valid one and does not call for any interference.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Dwivedi - Full Document

Juvenile Conflict With Law vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2023

8. In contrast, counsel for State has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the applicant and submitted that the assessment was made b y the Board not only on the basis of age of juvenile at the time of committing crime but also on the fact that crime was continued from 2019 till 2021. The juvenile on the last date of committing crime has attained the age under which trial can be conducted treating them to be an adult and order has rightly been passed by the Board and approved by the Sessions Judge that juvenile nos.1 to 3 should be tried treating them an adult and as such matter be transferred to the competent court of jurisdiction. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court passed in case of Vikas Choudhary Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & another reported in 2010 (8) SCC 508, in which the Supreme Court has considered this aspect Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 3/2/2023 11:52:00 AM 6 that the age of juvenile should not be determined considering the date of incident. He submits that since trial was continued, therefore, the age can be considered taking note of the last date of committing crime and as per the facts of the case it has rightly been observed that juvenile Nos.1, 2 and 3 have attained the age under which trial can be conducted treating them to be an adult, therefore, the order is valid one and does not call for any interference.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 11 - S Dwivedi - Full Document

State vs (1) Moinuddin on 2 July, 2013

4 On the other hand, learned counsel for convicts has submitted that convict Moinuddin is aged about 39 years having two minor children. Convict Firoz is aged about 40 years having two minor children. Convict Mohd. Danish is 22 years old and at the time of occurrence, he was 21 years old. Convict Moinuddin spent 3 months, convict Firoz spent 2 months, whereas convict Mohd. Danish spent 1 month in judicial custody, therefore, they are entitled to be released on probation. There is no previous conviction or involvement of the SC No.40/2011 State vs Moinuddin etc. Page 31 of 35 convicts in any other case. Convicts never abused the privilege of bail. It is claimed that convicts are first time offenders and there is every probability of their reformation. An application under section 360 Cr.P.C. read with section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act has been moved on behalf of convicts for releasing them on probation. 5 In support of their application, ld. Counsel for the convicts has relied upon judgment in case of Vikas vs. The State ( NCT of Delhi) & Others 2013(1) JCC 753 in which chargesheet was filed against the appellants under section 308/34 IPC but they were convicted under section 323/34 IPC. The Hon'ble High Court instead of awarding custodial punishment, released them on probation. However, facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the present case convicts have been convicted under section 308/325/34 IPC and not under section 323 IPC. The offences committed by the convicts in the present case are more serious than the said case, therefore, convicts can not get help from the said judgment.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next