Delhi Court April 2007 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.
Mrs. Sushma Thadani Vs. Mr. Yatish Kumar Satija and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ199
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this common order, I propose to deal with the aforesaid applications. Parties have addressed common arguments. 2. The plaintiff is the daughter while defendant No. 1 is the son of late Lt. Col. Ram Krishna Satija and late Smt. Bimla Satija. Late Lt. Col. Ram Krishan Satija was admittedly the owner of the suit property bearing No. B-44, defense Colony, New Delhi. He had acquired the leasehold rights in respect of the suit property vide perpetual lease deed dated 3.6.1978. Lt. Col. R. K. Satija expired on 25.2.1991. The mother of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 thereafter passed away on 15.2.1995. 3. The plaintiff avers that she has been in occupation of the first floor, barsati and the garage block of the suit property and that she has been residing with her family and parents therein since the year 1971. The ground floor of the property was let out to tenants even during the lifetime of the father. It is claimed that defendant No. 1 never resided on the ground f...
Confideration of Delhi Ind. Soc. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ633
J.P. Singh, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction for quashing the Award passed in pursuance of the Land Acquisition proceedings vide Notification dated 16.6.1998 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and Declaration under Section 6 of the said Act for the land measuring 11 bighas 16 bids was situated at village Chowkri Mubarikabad.2. We have heard Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Counsel for LAC, Mr. B.S. Mann, learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 and Mr. S.P. Sharma learned Counsel for respondent No. 7.3. At the outset we find it necessary to mention that land was acquired for construction of Common Effluent Treatment Plant for the factories situated at Anand Parbat, Delhi in compliance with the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India but till today the Plant could not be constructed, apparently because o...
Link Engineers (P) Limited Vs. Asea Brown Boveri Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: 140(2007)DLT533
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.+ is No.12897/2006 (u/O 6 R 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery/damages against the defendants. The plaintiff claims to be a reputed company having experience in assisting foreign companies worldwide for image building, public relations, marketing information, etc. in the power industry. Defendant No. 1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying power and plant equipments and services. It is alleged that BHEL is the main competitor of defendant No. 1 and in order to effectively face competition from BHEL defendant No. 1 was desirous of forming a Joint Venture with another public sector company, NTPC.2. Defendant No. 1 is stated to have approached the plaintiff for availing of its liaison services to ultimately have a Joint Venture of defendant No. 1 with NTPC and towards this object an agreement was arrived at on 15.7.1998. Defendant No. 1 agreed to pay the plaintiff a total consideration of Rs. 20....
Maninder Singh Vs. Neelam
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: II(2007)DMC436; (2008)149PLR9
ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 11.2.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the Misc. Case No. 35 of 2002 in HMA No 427 of 2000 declining to set aside the ex parte decree dated 12.10.2001 granting divorce to the respondent on the ground of cruelty under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act').2. The brief facts are that the appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act against the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. In that very petition, a counter-claim was filed by the respondent seeking divorce from the appellant on the ground of cruelty under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Act read with Section 23A thereof. When the Section 9 petition was listed on 12.4.2001, the appellant did not appear and accordingly, it was dismissed in default.3. The respondent realized that with the dismissal of the petition in default, the counter-claim was inadvertently dismissed, ...
Ganesh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: 140(2007)DLT10; 2007(95)DRJ642; [2007(114)FLR355]
Hima Kohli, J. 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner workman prays inter alias for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of Union of India, respondent No. 1. herein, dated 4th January, 2005 declining to make a reference of the industrial dispute and seeks directions to the respondent No. 1 to make a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), of the dispute espoused on behalf of the petitioner workman. 2. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to briefly narrate the facts of the present case. The father of the petitioner workman was employed in the Post and Telecommunication Department, respondent No. 2 herein, as a Record-Keeper, Audit Department, with effect from 20th June, 1996. On 9th August, 2000, the father of the petitioner workman died, leaving behind the mother of the petitioner and four children including the petitioner. On 7th December, 2000, the mother of the petitioner workman made an...
Schmid Telecom India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Airport Authority of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: II(2007)BC307
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The petitioner, Schmid Telecom India Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, was a tenderer for a notice of tender issued by the Airport Authority of India, the respondent No. 1 in March-April, 2006 being tender No. CNS(P)-02/2006-07 for supply installation, testing and commissioning of Voice Communication System for installation in Airports under it.2. The facts as averred by the petitioner are as follows:(a) In April/May, 2006, the petitioner submitted its bid. On 16th May, 2006, the respondent No. 1 sought certain documents from the petitioner in support of its bid which documents were supplied by the petitioner on 17th May, 2006. Further clarification was sought from the petitioner by the respondent No. 1 by letter dated 18th July, 2006, which reads as follows:AAI/Proc/VCCS/2005-CNS(P) Dated:18/07/06To,M/s Schmid Telecom India Pvt. Ltd.Schmid Telecom AGBinzstrasse 35CH-8045 ZurichSwitzerlandSUB : Tender No. CNS(P)-11/2...
Sunil Bansal Vs. the State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ9
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. These present Criminal Revision Petitions are preferred by the Petitioners against the charges framed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 498A/304B Indian Penal Code (IPC) by his order dated 6.11.20062. The brief facts necessary to decide this petition are that one Neelam (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was found hanging on 25.9.2004 in her matrimonial house. She was declared dead in the hospital. She had died an unnatural death. The deceased was married to Sunil Bansal (hereinafter referred to as 'the husband', he is the petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 928/2006) on 2.4.1998. Two sons were born out of the wedlock. The other revision petitioner is brother in law of the deceased. The statement of the deceased's parents and brother were recorded by the police on the day of the death. Those statements were that the deceased was living happily in the matrimonial home since the inception of marriage, and there were no disput...
Devender Ram Ratwana Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ766
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This order proposes to dispose off a revision petition, directed against an order on charge, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereafter 'the trial court').2. Facts necessary to decide this petition, are that Marisa Borg, a citizen of Malta (hereafter 'the complainant') filed a complaint alleging commission of offences under Sections 420/468/471/IPC, by the petitioners. She was allegedly was cheated by the accused. It is alleged that she came into contact with the petitioner accused, by e-mail chatting. In the process, the complainant and accused became well acquainted with each other and also became good friends.3. The complainant alleged that during the period she was also introduced to the petitioner's family members; he allegedly told complainant about his illness. She arranged for his visa and air-tickets, for him, in addition to $ 14,400.00 so that he could visit Malta and for medical treatment. The accused petitioner reached Malta on 17th March 200...
Rai Kumar @ Sonu @ Chandu Vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ102
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2007 seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2005 arising out of F.I.R. No. RC2(S)/99/SIC.I/New Delhi, registered at Police Station CBI, SIC.I, New Delhi, whereby learned judge vide his judgment and order dated 18.03.2006 has convicted the appellant along with four others for the offence under Sections 396/397/400/201 IPC. Further by his order dated 05.04.2006, he has awarded sentence of life imprisonment to the appellant under Section 396 as well as under Section 400 IPC. The appellant was also awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand) under Section 201 IPC and in default of payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant.2. The judgment under challenge was taken up in appeal in Crimina...
Bhilai Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2007
Reported in: (2007)11STJ185CESTATNew(Delhi)
1. The applicant seeks interim stay and waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1,35,100/- imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority did not impose any penalty under Section 76 for failure to collect or pay Service tax. The assessee had appealed against the order of the adjudicating authority to the extent it went against the assessee. However, Revenue did not prefer any appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority under Section 85, as a person aggrieved against the order to the extent it did not impose penalty under Section 76. It appears that the Commissioner, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 84 against the order made by the adjudicating authority, took up the matter of non-imposition of penalty under Section 76 and after issuing notices dated 8.9.2006 made the impugned order imposing penalty under Section 76. The order has been made by the Commissioner after the disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »