Delhi Court October 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gurcharan Singh Bhawnani Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ744; 94(2001)DLT813; 2003(67)DRJ191
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Noticing that judgments of different Benches--Single and Division -- in effect permitted compounding of offences which are non-compoundable by exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Code,) reference has been made to the Larger Bench, as the learned Judge before whom the petitions were posted, expressed doubt about permissibility of such a course.2. Factual aspects need not be noted in detail, as the basic issue involved in all these cases in that proceedings were initiated for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (in short the Act) read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (in short, IPC) and payer was for quashing them as theft bill amounts have been paid.3. Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that even though there may be bar for compounding of offences in terms of Sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the Code, yet there is no bar for ...
Hukum Chand Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ42; 2001(2)JCC348
S.K. Agarwal, J.Criminal Rev. No. 488/2001 1. Perusal of the mechanical report reveals that no damage was found on the back of the scooter and perusal of the record reveals that scooter was hit from the behind.2. Admit. Crl. M. No. 910/2001 3. This is an application under Section 397 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence pending final disposal of the revision petition.4. Heard.5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, application is allowed. Substantive sentence of the petitioner, shall remain suspended during the pendency of the revision petition, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the one surety to like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.6. Application stands disposed of.7. dusty....
Rotela Auto Components (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jaspal Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT830
Vijender Jain, J.1. Plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction, inter alia, praying for injunction against infringement of design, passing off and rendition of accounts. It is the case of the applicants-plaintiffs that plaintiff No. 1 is a company registered in India and plaintiff No. 2 is a Corporation existing under the laws of Republic of China and having its registered officer at Taiwan. The applicants are the sole distributor and constituted attorney in India for the Top Open Locks and Pin Locks manufactured by plaintiff No. 2.2. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the applicants-plaintiffs, has contended that plaintiffs are manufacturing unique and distinctive locks since the period of its registration under the provisions of Designs Act, 2000. Some of the salient features of the plaintiffs Top Open Locks are as under:-a) Top View: (i) It is a shackle having five (pentagon) layers.(ii) There is one top layer, two corner layers and two flat layers.(iii) The shac...
Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shriram Industrial Enterpr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT75
J.D. Kapoor, J.1 The award dated 7.12.1994 through which claim of the respondent was rejected is sought to be made rule of the Court. it has been challenged by the applicant/respondent corporation by way of is 9762/96.2. The applicant is a governing undertaking situated in the State of Punjab and is engaged in the procurement and arrangement of fertilizers within the State of Punjab. Respondent 1 was engaged in the business of manufacture of fertilisers. As per contract the deliveries were to be effected by respondent No. 1 all over the State of Punjab through its local dealers. The goods were to be transported at the cost of respondent 1. Various supplies were effected by respondent No. 1 from time to time any payments were made to it by letter of credit on presentation of advice and goods receipt. These transactions took place between 1983 and 1985. Since supplies were made all over the State and in far flung areas the applicant took time to effect deliveries.3. It was discovered tha...
Abdu Ram Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT703; 2002(61)DRJ799
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). Challenge is to the judgment and order dated 12th April 2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 114/00. Though the date was specifically fixed today by order 1st August 2001 at the request of the parties, none appears to represent the appellant. Mr. A.K. Singh learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that the appeal itself is not maintainable, in view of the clear language of Section 378(4). According to him, the appellant is not the complainant and thereforee the appeal itself is to be dismissed as non-competent.2. Section 378 deals with the appeal in case of acquittal. The said Section reads as follows:'378 Appeal in case of acquittal -(1) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-section (2) and subject tot eh provisions of Sub-sections (3) and (5), the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecut...
Wali Mohd. and ors. Vs. Kilasi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT592; 2002(61)DRJ292
Vikramjit Sen, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the concurrent findings of the Additional Rent Controller as well as Rent Control Tribunal under Section 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, on the question of the rate at which rent is to be deposited by the Respondent in the duration of the disposal of eviction petition. It is thus in respect of Orders which are intrinsically interlocutory in nature. An eviction petition had been filed by the landlord which was decreed ex parte. The Respondent subsequently filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC and thereafter in his application seeking leave to contest under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act stating in essence that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. Thereafter an application has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The 'assertion in this application is that the rent was Rs...
SakalaIn Meghjee Vs. Bm House (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: 2002(24)PTC207(Del)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of both the applications i.e. IA. 6940/2001 and IA. 7311/2001. IA. 6940/2001 is filed by the plaintiff for ad-interim injunction whereas IA. 7311/2001 is filed by defendant seeking vacation of injunction order dated 6-8-2001. Both the applications were thereforee heard together.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for permanent injunction in respect of passing off, infringement of trademark and copyright and for damages and delivery up. Subject matter of the suit are two magazines, one published by the plaintiff and other published by the defendant - both titled 'Wedding Affair'. The case of the plaintiff is that his magazine is published from London and circulated in most parts of the world including India and that the defendant has started its publication with the same name infringing his trade mark and copyright.3. When the matter came up for preliminary hearing on 3-8-2001, notice in the application was issued for 6-8-2001. Notic...
Saluja Farms Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Del)742; [2002]254ITR172(Delhi); [2002]120TAXMAN574(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. All these three reference applications involve an identical question of law and, thereforee, are being disposed of by this common order.2. Pursuant to the directions given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'the Act'), the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' (for short the 'Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, interest paid by the association of persons on the loan obtained from the bank for meeting demands of withdrawals of funds by the association of person-members out of their huge credit balances was an admissible deduction from the interest income of the association of persons, assessable under Section 56 for the assessment year 1973-74 ?'3. The assessment years involved are 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76.4. The question that was considered by the authorities was whether there was scope for disallowance of...
Kusum Kishore Vs. Kamla Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT873
R.C. Jain, J. 1. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenge is made to an order dated 24.5.2000 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, thereby disposing of an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC moved on behalf of the petitioner-landlord praying for setting aside the dismissal of a petition, dismissed in default on 19th January, 2000, and for its restoration. 2. On 19.1.2000, petition of the writ petitioner was listed for recording of evidence before the learned Controller but neither the petitioner nor her counsel or any other representative put in appearance and consequently the petition was dismissed in the post lunch session after waiting for the petitioner. Application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was moved on behalf of the petitioner herein stating that the counsel for the petitioner Ms. Rekha Aggarwal being busy in connection with her personal case listed in the Hon'ble High Court, she had asked a colleague Mr. Ashok Rawal, Advocate, to...
The Shop Vs. Rattan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC396(Delhi)
R.C. Jain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Thisappeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.3.1997passed by the learned Trial Court and that of theAdditional District Judge, dated 24.7.2001, by which asuit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sumof Rs.8,703.28 and delivery of ST1 forms for a value ofRs.13,811.97 or in the alternative to the ST1 forms forthe amount of sales tax at the rate of 7% was decreed.The petitioner/defendant contested the suit on a varietyof grounds fully taken note by both the courts below andfound no merits in the defense put forth on behalf of thedefendant.2. The impugned order is sought to be assailedmainly on the ground that the judgments of the courtsmainly on the ground that the judgments of the courtsbelow are legally untenable and several substantivequestions of law as detailed in the memorandum of appealarise for consideration in this appeal. One suchquestion raised about the power and jurisdiction of thetrial court in per...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »