Delhi Court November 2006 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.
Vijay Malti Vs. Rajiv Vig
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Delhi89; 2009(93)DRJ344
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The application C.M.No.16660/2005 has been filed under Section 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, by the wife (hereafter referred to as the Appellant) claiming maintenance pendente lite, and litigation expenses from the husband (hereafter referred to as the Respondent) for herself as well as her daughter during the pendency of the matrimonial appeal, F.A.O.No.176/1994.2. The facts necessary to decide the present application are that the parties were married on 5.12.1981 at Delhi and two children; both daughters, were born out of the wedlock. The parties are living separately since 1986. The husband had filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion of the wife; the proceeding was decreed in his favor on 28.05.1994. The appeal preferred by the wife is pending on the file of this Court. The elder daughter- who is now married- was earlier residing with the Respondent and the younger daughter, Neha who is pursuing her Chartered Accountancy (C....
Deutsche Homoopathie-union Dhu-arzneimittel Gmbh and Co. Kg Vs. R.K. I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: [2008]145CompCas377(Delhi); 141(2007)DLT378
Sanjiv Khanna, J 1. Deutsche Homoopathie-Union DHU-Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, for short) has filed two Company Petition Nos. 191/2005 and 192/2005 under Sections 433(e), (f), Section 434 read with Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short ) for winding up of M/s R.K. Import Private Limited and German Homoeopathic Distributors Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as R.K. Imports and German respectively and collectively as the respondent companies).2. It is the case of the petitioner that R.K. Imports and German were appointed as sole agents for sale and distribution of homeopathic medicines of Dr. Willmar Schwabe Arzneimittel GmbH and Co.KG. The said agreement was signed and executed in June, 1998 and expired by efflux of time on 31st March, 2003.3. In CP No. 191/2005, it is stated that R.K. Imports had placed two orders on the petitioner for purchase of homeopathic medicines in the month of Octo...
Smt. Riaz Fatima and anr. Vs. Mohd. Sharif
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC26
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 claiming themselves to be the wife and daughter, respectively, of respondent filed two applications for maintenance. The respondent contested these applications primarily on the ground that they were not maintainable inasmuch as the respondent had divorced the petitioner No. 1 much prior to filing of these applications. thereforee, instead of moving under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the remedy of the petitioner No. 1 was to take recourse to the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter called Act). Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, vide common judgment dated 13.5.2000, rejected the contention of the respondent and fixed the maintenance of Rs. 275/- per month to petitioner No. 1 with effect from 1.9.1994 to 30.4.1995 and @ Rs. 400/- per month with effect from 1.5.1998 and awarded maintenance to the petitioner No. 2 @ Rs. 225/- with effect from 1.4.1995 to 30.4.1995 and Rs. 400/- with effect from 1.5.1998. However...
Ramkishan Singhal Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. Iii a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2006
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR699]
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 24.7.2002 passed by Industrial Tribunal-III, Delhi, whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner.Briefly the facts are that the petitioner was working as a Technical Assistant in the Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi. He was holding charge of store of the Department of Anthropology. Head of Department Mr. P.S. Mongia issued a letter dated 2nd September, 2001 asking the petitioner to handover the charge of the store to Mr. L.C. Jain but the petitioner did not hand-over the charge and rather took a plea that the Head of Department had no authority to tell him to hand over the charge. Repeated letters were written to the petitioner to hand-over the charge but he refused to hand-over the charge with the result that the charge had to be taken over without the help of the petitioner who had proceeded on leave. Almirah and drawers bearing his locks were sealed...
Raj Kumar Singh Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(93)DRJ195
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 671 of 2002 and 65 of 2002 are filed against common judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 20.8.2001 in Sessions Case No. 297/1996 holding the appellants guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for committing the murder of Smt. Kiran Jain; as also for offence under Section 397 read with Section 34 IPC and for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Further by his separate order dated 21.8.2001, the learned Judge sentenced the each of the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC together with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default, further simple imprisonment of one year. Both the appellants were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years for offence under Section 397 read with Section 34 IPC as also a sentence of one year for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the learne...
Surinder Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(113)ECC358; 2006LC358(Delhi); 2006(204)ELT534(Del)
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This writ petition challenges an order dated 12.6.2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) rejecting the claim for refund of the drawback recovered from the petitioner to the extent of its customs component of Rs. 46,06,890. The petitioner's claim for interest at 24% on the entire amount of the drawback recovered from the petitioner (on both excise and customs components) was also rejected by the impugned order.Background Facts2. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/s. Rangi International and is carrying on the business of manufacture and export of readymade garments. During 1991-1993, the petitioner exported garments to M/s. Pinky Originals Inc. and M/s. Indo American Design Workshop Inc. USA valued at Rs. 45.75 crores, in respect of which the petitioner was allowed duty drawback. However, the petitioner was not able to realise export proceeds to the extent of Rs. 11.73 crores since the foreign buyers were declared bankrupt. Consequently,...
Kali Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(93)DRJ262
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This land acquisition appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi. The land was situated in village Bakkarwala. The Land Acquisition Collector fixed the market values of the land @ Rs. 96,875/- per bigha. Dissatisfied, the appellants preferred a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act. The matter was accordingly referred to the Additional District Judge for fixing just and fair market value. After' examining the evidence produced by the parties the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,08,000/-per bigha besides other usual benefits. The appellants were still not satisfied and filed this appeal for further enhancement on the ground that the reference court did not properly appreciate the evidence led by the appellant.2. There is no dispute that the compensation awarded by the...
ilyas Azmi and anr. Vs. Directorate of Estates
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(93)DRJ270
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 06.10.2006 in W.P.(C) No. 14907-08/2006 and has challenged the same by filing the present appeal. The main grievance of the appellant is that he has not been given adequate time to take recourse under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act so as to challenge the eviction order which has been passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act. The appellant has also contended that vide letter dated 14th/17th July 2006, the Lok Sabha Secretariat had directed the Office of Directorate of Estates to keep in abeyance the eviction proceedings and, therefore, any notice served by the Directorate of Estates under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act prior to 14th/17th July, 2006 was of no consequence.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The brief facts which are not in dispute inter-alia are ...
Ram Chander Vs. R.K. Khattar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2006
Reported in: 137(2007)DLT639
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The issues sought to be raised in all these petitions are same and, thereforee, the same are heard and decided by this common order.2. M/s. Ashoka Land and Finance Corporation, a partnership firm, (hereinafter referred to as 'the firm'), developed a colony with the name 'Ashoka Enclave' in Gurgaon (now vested in Faridabad). It carved out certain plots and offered it to general public for sale. One Shri Baldev Lal Khattar booked a plot with the said firm on 9.4.1963 and the total consideration was fixed at Rs. 5,000/-. He deposited Rs. 1,250/- at the time of booking and later on paid the remaining installments as well. Shri Baldev Lal Khattar died on 29.9.1996. After his death, his son Mr.R.K. Khattar (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') approached the firm and its partners for allotment of plot but no heed was paid. The complainant, thereforee, filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr....
Smt. Swaran Lata Vs. Shri P.P. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2006
Reported in: 135(2006)DLT362
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this order I propose to decide two applications, being I.A.Nos.10301 & I.A.No.10302/2006. The first application is filed by the petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for re-framing the issues framed by this Court on 4th August, 2006. The second application is filed by the respondent under Section 114 and under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review and recall of order dated 4th August, 2006 praying that the petitioner's application for revocation of the Will in question be disposed of on the basis of the documents on record.2. On 4th August, 2006, the following issues were framed for consideration on the pleadings of the parties:I. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the revocation of the grant of letters of administration issued to the respondent by a judgment and order of this Court dated 2.3.2005 in Probate Case No.34/1988 under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »