Delhi Court May 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.
Shri Surender Singh and ors. Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)1055; 2001CriLJ3126; 92(2001)DLT187
R.S. Sodhi, J:1. Criminal Appeal No.165/1992 is directed against the Judgment and Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No.82/86 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his Judgment and Order dated 22.8.1992 held the appellants guilty under Sections 326/34 and further by a separate Order dated 29.8.1992 has been pleased to sentence the appellants to undergo RI for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further SI for 10 days.2. The prosecution case, as narrated by the learned Judge, is that 'on 26-2-85 on the receipt of copy of D.D.No.6A regarding quarrel, SI Ram Singh (PW-10) along with Constable Om Prakash and Constable Navin Kumar reached Sardhanand College. He learnt that the injured had already been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital by someone. The Sub-Inspector could not find any person as witness to the occurrence and, thereforee, proceeded to the hospital, where he came across injured Surender Sing...
M/S Rajni Industries Vs. Bhartiya Dhoop Karyalaya and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)6; 92(2001)DLT556; 2001(3)RAJ263
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. is 8429/99 is an application, filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC for continuance of interim order. is 8591/99 is an application, filed by the plaintiff under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the Suit No. 112/99, filed by the defendant in the Court of Additional District Judge for being tried with the present suit.This matter had come up on 25th of August, 1999 when by an ex-parte interim order, this Court restrained the defendant or anyone acting on their behalf from taking any proceedings against the plaintiff on the basis of the plaintiff's mark 'T-Series Bhakti Sagar Gopal Dhoop' on the basis of the violation of the Trademark NO. 158747. It is this ex-parte ad-interim injunction order which is sought to be confirmed/vacated by the present application, i.e., is 8429/99.2. The plaint avers as follows:(i) That plaintiff is the leading manufacturer of dhoop, agarbatti, havan samagri etc., under the Mark 'T-Series' and/or 'T-Series B...
Smt. Prem Lata Kapoor Vs. Shri Y.N. Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)969; 92(2001)DLT713; 2001(60)DRJ176; 2002(1)RAJ531
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. The relevant facts in brief are as under:-The husband of the applicant and the respondent were real brothers and were carrying on a partnership business in the name and style of M/s. Radha Kishan Sri Kishan Das from their property no. 4978, Rui Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The suit property devolved upon the above tow brothers/partners and jointly used as partnership property for the aforesaid partnership business. On the sudden demise of Shri R.C. Kapoor, the plaintiff was admitted and substituted as a partner and a partnership deed dated 23rd December, 1996 was executed between her and the respondent.2. However at the time of execution of the said partnership deed between the parties, final balance sheet and profit and loss account of the dissolved firm as on 16th December, 1996 was prepared and accepted as correct by both the parties. The credit ba...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR119(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN742(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Accepting the prayer made in terms of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' (in short 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to interest on the entire refund amount of Rs. 19,71,005 which also included part payment made by the assessed under Section 140A(1) ?' 2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77. We find that the Tribunal relied on the decision of this court in National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. Union of India : [1981]130ITR928(Delhi) to grant relief to the assessed in terms of Section 214 of the Act. The issue involved appears to have been considered by the apex court in Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT : [1995]216ITR759(SC) . 3. In our ...
Babu Lal Yadav Vs. State of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2001
Reported in: 92(2001)DLT491
A.K. Sikri, J.Rule.1. With the consent of parties, the matter is finally heard at this stage.2. The petitioner had applied for recruitment to the post of Primary Teacher, MCD, Post Code No. 08/98 of the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/98 issued by the respondents. The respondents have prescribed the criteria for calculating the score/marks for the purpose of giving appointment to the candidates. As per this criteria, all those who scored 43.33 marks have been given appointment to the posts of Primary Teacher against the aforesaid category. Petitioner has filed this writ petition on the ground that although his score comes to 43.43 but his name is not found in the list of selected candidates. In response to show cause notice issued, respondents appeared and filed counter affidavits. As per the stand taken by the respondents, the score of the petitioner is 43.23 and not 43.43. The difference in calculation of the marks is because of differ...
Raj Sarogi Vs. American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2001
Reported in: 2001VIIAD(Delhi)473; 94(2001)DLT127; 2001(60)DRJ138
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. During the pendency of the suit filed by the appellant against the respondent an application (IA. 9823/2000) was filed by the appellant under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the CPC') praying that the defendant be called upon to make discovery on oath of documents in sub-para (i), (ii) and (iii) of para 3 of the application and produce the same in Court and on production the appellant be given inspection and copies thereof. The appellant/plaintiff in the application asserted that the documents were relevant for proper and effective adjudication of the questions involved in the suit and will reduce the controversy between the parties. The documents, production of which was sought, were described as follows :- '(i) Photocopy of the lease deed dated 2nd August, 1996 between the defendant and Mrs. Kamla Vachani and Ms. Madhavi Vachani with respect to the property bearing No. S-51A, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Next ›