Delhi Court November 2004 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.
Razab Ali Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1870; 115(2004)DLT400; 2005(79)DRJ235
J.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Razab Ali, convicted for the offences under section 302 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act vide judgment dated 23.8.1997 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo RI for 3 months for the offence under section 302 IPC, as also to undergo RI for 6 months each for the offence under sections 25 & 27 Arms Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo further RI for one month for each section, vide order on sentence dated 27.8.1997, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.2. We have heard Mr. Sumeet Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ravinder Chaddha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record.3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 12.8.1996 upon receipt of a telephone call from Duty Ct. Gopal Prasad of LNJPN hospital, regarding admission of an unknown person (brought dead) by Ct. Veerpal, DD entry No. 18-A was recorded...
Kavinder and ors. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1589; 115(2004)DLT541; 2005(79)DRJ1
T.S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order on sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2002 whereby the appellants have been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of one Farid @ Katarva R/o Sunder Nagari, Delhi and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life apart from payment of a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default whereof the convicts have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under :-3. Farid @ Katarva was a resident of Sunder Nagari, Delhi situate within the limits of Nandnagari Police Station. On 6th October, 2001, he is alleged to have left his house without informing anyone regarding his whereabouts. Four days later i.e. on 10th October 2001, while Farid had not yet returned home, his father Asgar Ali found a piece of paper lying outside his house with a message written on the s...
Rajinder Kumar and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2041; 115(2004)DLT587; 2005(79)DRJ103
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 37/1999 arising out of F.I.R. No. 99/89, Police Station Geeta Colony under Section 307/325/34 IPC.2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Sessions Judge are as follows:-''On 12th of July, 1989 at about 9.00 p.m. Jasbir Singh, ASI of Police Control Room, informed the police of Police Station Geeta Colony on telephone that one Prithviraj has informed by way of telephonic call that a serious altercation was going on in a marriage party at Ram Leela Maidan near bus stop, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. On this information D.D. No. 49-B was recorded and was assigned to Ombir Singh ASI, for action in the matter. Ombir Singh ASI, left for the spot along with Const. Kiran Pal. At about 9.15 p.m. Lady Const. Ramwati of police control room had informed the police of P.S. Geeta Colony that one Ram had passed on information to her that Choudhary Manbir Singh has been murder...
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Director (Grievance Cell) Central Board of Di ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Del)185
B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying that the respondents be directed to pay interest of Rs. 6,49,250/- from 25.10.1985 to 9.4.1990 which is the date of refund of the amount at the rate of 15% per annum, and further interest on the above amount of Rs. 6,49,210/- at the rate of 15% from 9.4.1990 till the date of payment. 2. The assessed was searched at Bombay Airport and on his person a sum of Rs. 9,80,000/- was found and seized by the Income Tax authorities on 4.4.1984. In view of this seizure and the provisions contained in Section 132 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter to be referred as ''the Act''), an order was made under Section 132(5) of the Act on 4.7.1984. The order could have been challenged by the petitioner sub-section (11) of Section 132 of the Act. However, the order was accepted and no challenge was made thereto. It appears that on 25.10.985 the asses...
Yogender Pal Bhatia Son of Late Shri Hans Raj, Prop. of Arya Cane Indu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT202; 2005(79)DRJ294
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner had filed a suit, being Suit No. 78/2000 (new number), for a mandatory injunction directing the Respondents to carry out necessary repairs in a portion of the tenanted premises. It was also prayed that a decree of damages for Rs. 2 lakhs, with interest be passed against the Respondents.2. The Petitioner filed an interim application for directions to the Respondents to carry out necessary repairs during the pendency of the suit. By an order dated 30th October, 1998 the application was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.3. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner filed FAO No. 29/1999 in this Court and by an order dated 27th July, 2000, it was held that the Trial Court had not committed any illegality or impropriety in declining grant of interim relief to the Petitioner. It was further held that if repairs were carried out, particularly plugging a hole in the roof, during the pendency of the suit, the grant of interim relief would amount to gr...
Parvati Devi Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1615; 115(2004)DLT578; 2005(79)DRJ98
T.S. Thakur, J.1. The appellant in this acquittal appeal having passed away, the question is whether the appeal can be said to have abated under Section 394 of Code of Civil Procedure. Crl. M. No. 14/2002 filed by Rakesh Kumar, the son of the deceased appellant, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks an order directing his substitution in place of the deceased. The respondents have strenuously opposed that prayer inter alias on the ground that there is no provision for substitution of one complainant of appellant by another in criminal cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is additionally contended that the appeal itself was not maintainable at the instance of the appellant as the case, out of which the same arose, was a Sessions case no matter the same was instituted on a private complaint. The application seeking special leave to appeal as also the accompanying appeal thereforee deserve dismissal according to the respondents.2. Appearing for the applicant ...
Jagdish Prasad Agarwal Vs. Cimmco Birla Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR483(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Learned counsel for the respondent states that he was briefed two days ago and that he would like to file a reply.2. So far as Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is concerned, there can be no gainsaying that the function that the Court discharges is of an administrative nature. It is certainly arguable that even a notice to the opposite party may not be necessary. But nonetheless Courts are adopting the procedure of hearing the opposite party, in the interest of justice. This is not a fresh matter in view of the fact that the petitioner/applicant had to approach this Court for the appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 because of the obduracy of the respondent in not following the legal procedure. Request for filing a reply is declined. In B.W.L. v. M.T.N.L., : 85(2000)DLT84 , I have held that a party loses its contractual right to appoint/nominate the Arbitrator if it fails to act within the stipulated period.3. It has next contended that...
Sports Authority of India Vs. Sports Authority of India, Kamgar Union ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR648]
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. S/Shri Deepak Raj, Mangal Singh and Ramender Tiwari were engaged as Groundsman on casual/daily rate basis during the period of November 1986 to April 1987. After October 1990 their engagement was not continued because of non-availability of work. These workmen raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the labour court by Delhi Administration vide its order of reference dated 27.7.1992. Having permitted the parties to complete their pleadings and lead evidence in support thereof vide its award Shri K.S. Mohi, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi vide award dated 24.12.2001 answered the reference in favor of the workers and consequently allowed re-instatement of all the three workers with full back wages and continued of service. The award was published by the Labour Commissioner on 22.7.2002 and it became enforceable in terms of Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Ac t '') on 21.8.2002. 2. The Sports Authori...
Old Village Industries Ltd. Vs. the Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC138; 115(2004)DLT510; [2005(104)FLR876]; (2005)IILLJ742Del
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Being aggrieved from the order dated 19.4.2004 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, the Employees Provident Fund Organisation under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and also from the recovery of notice dated 10.9.2004 issued by the Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, New Delhi. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of both these orders and restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps in effecting recovery from them.2. The petitioner company has been carrying on its business for a considerable time and was brought under the provisions of the Act with effect from 1.3.1975. There was default in its contribution by the petitioner company and the respondent No. 1 issued a notice dated 12.2.2004 for initiating proceedings for default for the period 1997-2004. The representation of the petitioner was c...
Cit Vs. J.L. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN692(Delhi)
The Commissioner of income-tax moved the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to refer three questions under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in ITA No. 3447 (Delhi) of 197576 for the assessment year 1973-74. The Tribunal referred the following question of law to this Court:'Whether on the facts and in the Circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the assessed's claim that the amount of Rs. 39,039 representing unclaimed liabilities written off was not taxable for the assessment order 1973-74?'2. The Tribunal appears to have decided the reference relying on the decision in the case of J.K. Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT : [1966]62ITR34(Bom) .3. The learned counsel for the revenue fairly stated that in view of the decision in case of CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works : [1999]236ITR518(SC) the reference is required to be decided in favor of the assessed and against the revenue. In view of this, we answer the question in favor of the assessed a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »