Delhi Court October 2007 Judgments

Kamal @ Pappu Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ175

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 878 of 2005 and 111 of 2005 seek to challenge judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 126 of 2003 arising out of F.I.R. No. 271 of 2001 registered at Police Station Dilshad Garden, whereby learned judge vide his judgment dated 14.1.2005 has held the appellants, namely, Kamal @ Pappu and Vijay, guilty for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. Further, vide his order dated 15.1.2005, has sentenced the appellants to imprisonment for life each together with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under Section 302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, further Simple Imprisonment for six months each. Benefit under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure was awarded to both the appellants.2. Brief facts of the case as have been noted by learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment under challenge are as follows:.that on the night intervening 14/15.11.2001 between 10:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., both the accused in...

Rama Beri and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ186

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Prayer made in the petition is as under:(a) delete/modify the observations made in the order dated 21.08.2004, reproduced herein below and the same may be treated as non-est in the eyes of law;During reconciliation proceedings, it was stated by the husband that he was willing to pay Rs. 10,000/- p.m. for the bringing up and schooling of both children. He was also prepared to pay maintenance of the equal amount to the wife. He stated that he had already deposited Rs. 1 lakh each in the name of children by way of FDR and he would further make fixed deposit of Rs. 4 lacs each in the name of his children. He has also agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lacs to the wife, without prejudice to the rights and claims of istridhan and dowry articles etc. which shall be subject to adjudication by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Wife has also agreed that husband would be at liberty to meet the children whenever he comes to Delhi and desires to meet them. He may take the chil...

Yog Systems India Ltd. Vs. Su-kam Power Systems Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)CTLJ282(Del)

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 29th August, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge restraining the appellant-M/s. Yog Systems India Limited from encashing the bank guarantee and confirming ex parte ad interim injunction dated 6th July, 2006 till disposal of the suit. The said suit has been filed by the respondent-M/s. Su-Kam Power Systems Limited. Learned Single Judge accepted the case of the respondent that the appellant had played fraud inasmuch as he had attempted to invoke the bank guarantee on a false pretext without supplying the goods.2. On 26th May, 2006, the appellant had sent quotation to the respondent for supply of 5000 transformers. The quotation records that the supply would be made on free on board basis at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh within one week from the date of the purchase order. The place of delivery mentioned in the purchase order was Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, where the factory of the respondent is located. It is further s...

Smt. Munni Devi Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008(116)FLR16]

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner herein seeking issuance of directions to the respondent bank for payment of compensation to the petitioner for causing harassment and mental torture to her for 13 years and for payment of litigation expenses to her to the tune of Rs. 55,000, and for appointment of the younger son of the petitioner, Sh. Rakesh Namdev, on compassionate grounds with the respondent bank.2. Brief facts of the case are that Shri Jai Prakash Namdev, son of the petitioner, who was working with the respondent bank as a peon at its Bhopal office on a temporary basis, was confirmed in service on 2.8.1993, and he continued to work with the respondent bank till September, 1994. On 10.10.1994, a police complaint was lodged stating that Sh. Namdev was missing and a case was registered. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner herein before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 161/2007 wherein vide order dated 5.2.2007, the respondent bank was directed to pay...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anil Kumar Bishnoi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Del)49; [2009]311ITR449(Delhi)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. These are 12 references relating to various Assessment Years raising similar questions. Since the parties are agreed that the lead matter is ITR No. 75 of 1986 and that a decision in that reference would govern the rest of the references, we propose to deal with ITR No. 75 of 1986 in detail.2. Relevant for the Assessment Year 1979-80, the following question of law has been referred to us by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench A, New Delhi ('Tribunal') under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act):Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the I.T. Act.3. The assessed, who started a business in the name and style of M/s. Complete Dewatering Systems with effect from July 1, 1977, claimed that he is engaged in two distinct activities, for each of which he claimed investment allowance under Section 32A of the Act. The first...

Kanchild Mal and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ406

Rekha Sharma, J. 1. I have had the privilege of reading the judgment prepared by my learned brother Justice A.K. Sikri. I give a separate judgment for the reasons which follow. However, first the introduction followed by the issues raised. INTRODUCTION 2. The shops in question are admittedly on Government land and are on 80 feet wide Mathura Road in between Sai Hospital, Bhogal and Badarpur Road. Sometime in the year 2001, the Delhi Development Authority had initiated proceedings against the petitioners under Sections 14 & 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 alleging misuse of land. The notices/proceedings were, however, quashed on the ground that the petitioners were in occupation of the land prior in time to the coming in force of the first Master Plan in 1962. 3. Thereafter, the Delhi Development Authority initiated proceedings under the Public Premises Act, 1971 against the petitioners which led to an order of eviction. Admittedly, an appeal against the order is still pending ...

Commissioner of Police Vs. Rajender Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ244

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. The respondent Rajender Singh was enrolled as a Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police on 19.11.1981. He was confirmed in the said rank with effect from 1.3.1985 along with his other counterparts. His case was considered for bringing his name on promotion list 'F' (Exe) with effect from 12.8.1994. A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting for the said purpose was held in August, 1994 which found him 'unfit' for promotion on account of one major penalty of forfeiture of approved service and six minor penalties of 'censor'. The respondent challenged the imposition of the said major penalty in OA No. 1019/1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) which was set aside with all consequential benefits, on 11.12.1998. Review DPC was held on 18.11.1999 on account of effacement of the major penalty and for consideration of the case of the respondent. However for bringing his name on promotion list 'F' (Exe), on account of the afor...

Seema Gupta and anr. Vs. Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ227

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C is preferred by the petitioners for quashing FIR No. 558/2007 under Sections 120B, 406, 420 IPC registered at Police Station Kalkaji.2. It is stated that the instant FIR is an abuse of process of law lodged to harass and extort money from the petitioners who had no concern whatsoever with the alleged transactions or the disputes stated in the FIR.3. A perusal of the FIR would show that the petitioners were named in the complaint filed by the complainant. The complainant stated that he was cheated of an amount of Rs. 28,84,57,698/- (Twenty Eight Crore Eighty Four Lac Fifty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Eight) by the accused persons, including the present petitioners, by playing fraud upon him and by misrepresentation. The complainant company was induced to part with its valuable resources and money and accused persons jointly and in connivance with each other made wro...

Delhi Finance Company Vs. Renu Aggarwal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ605

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.Cr.M.A. No. 14601/2006 and 14599/06 (Condonation of Delay)For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.Both the applications stand allowed.Crl. L.P. No. 239/2006 and 240/2006Leave to appeal granted for the reasons stated in the application.These leave petitions stand disposed of.Crl. Appeal Nos. 651/2007 and 652/20071. By this common order, I shall dispose of these two appeals, which have been preferred by the appellant against the impugned order dated 2nd September, 2006 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby he acquitted the accused/respondent.2. Brief facts leading to filing of these two appeals are that the case was fixed on 2nd September, 2006 for complainant's evidence. On that day, an application for exemption was made on behalf of the complainant on the ground that complainant was out of station. The learned MM observed that a number of last opportunities were granted to the complainant to lead evidence...

Draupadi and Others Vs. Pradeep Mittal (Dr.) and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Complainants are family members of deceased Mangey Lal who expired on 18.5.1997 due to alleged negligence and deficiency in service on the part of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 in the treatment of Mangey Lal. The complainants have claimed compensation of Rs. 4,10,000 with 18% interest. 2. At the outset it may be stated that deceased Mangey Lal was known personally to the O.P. No. 1 and other doctors in the O.P. No. 3 hospital. As he owned a Maruti van and often used to help the hospital i.e., O.P. No. 3 in transferring the patients and used to carry oxygen cylinders as and when required in the hospital. 3. Relevant facts, in brief, are that on 16.5.1997 at about 6 p.m. deceased Mangey Lal fell from a wall of about 25 feet high and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. In order to hush up the matter Mr. Om Prakash Yadav, the employer of Mangey Lal, Mr. Ajay Beri the Principal Employer of Mr. Mangey Lal, constable Ram Kishan of P.S. Punjabi Bagh hatched a c...