Delhi Court July 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.
Decor India P. Ltd. Vs. National Building Const. Corpn. L.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR348(Delhi); 142(2007)DLT21; 2007(97)DRJ428
J.P. Singh, J.1. This Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 and Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 28.7.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Execution Petition. The Single Bench has dismissed the Execution Petition on the ground that mere pendency of the Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) stays the execution.2. We have heard Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Jayant Nath, Sr. Advocate learned Counsel for the Respondent.3. Briefly the facts are that the Appellant herein had done some interior work (renovations) in the office of the Respondent. The disputes were referred to the Arbitrator who delivered an Award on 22.10.1999. The Respondent herein filed an Application (Objections) under Section 34 of the Act before the learned Single Judge for setting aside the Award. The learned Single Judge modified the Award vide order dated 6.4....
Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ265
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this joint petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner and the respondent No. 2/complainant seek quashing of FIR No. 253/2007 registered at Police Station Anand Vihar under Section 307 IPC (Annexure-A) and all proceedings emanating there from. 2. The allegations as contained in the First Information Report are that on 6th May, 2007 at about 23.30 hours, at a marriage function, when the respondent No. 2-complainant was serving food to the guests, the petitioner who had come to attend the marriage and was holding a revolver in his right hand and firing shots in the air, fired a shot which hit the respondent No. 2-complainant in his left leg above the knee. Resultantly, the respondent No. 2-complainant was admitted to hospital where the Investigating Officer recorded his statement, on the strength of which the First Information Report was registered on the following day, i.e., 07.05.2007. On the very next day, i.e., on 08.05.2007, however, the respondent No....
North Delhi Power Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: 142(2007)DLT65
ORDER VOLUNTARY SEPARATION SCHEME 2003It has been decided to introduce Voluntary Separation Schemes 2003 for all such employees working in NDPL who have completed 10 years of service or have attained the age of 40 years as per details mentioned in the following paras:- I SCOPEThe Scheme shall apply to all the regular employees of NDPL who have completed 10 years of service from the date of joining DVB or have attainment the age of 40 years on the date of introduction of this scheme.II. ELIGIBILITYAny regular employees of North Delhi Power Limited who has completed 10 years of service or reached the age of 40 years on the date of introduction of this scheme may seek Voluntary Separation under this Scheme, by making a request in writing to the Competent Authority in the standard format enclosed herewith within the time limit prescribed.III. INELIGIBILITY CLAUSEa. Specialist employees who have executed service bonds and have not completed the obligation under it, employees serving abroad ...
Doctor Morepen Limited Vs. Yash Pharma Laboratories Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: LC2007(2)388; 2007(35)PTC357(Del)
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. Plaintiff filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant from infringement of trademark of the plaintiff and from passing of its goods as that of the plaintiff and also for rendition of accounts and delivery of infringing material.2. The defendant was manufacturing and marketing 'LEMOLATE' medicinal tablets. 'LEMOLATE' trademark was registered in the name of the defendant sometime in 1973 and the Registration was renewed from time to time. In 2002 plaintiff purchased 'LEMOLATE' brand from the defendant along with trademark, technical knowledge, manufacturing process etc. and entered into a Comprehensive Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding dated 4th April, 2002. As per this agreement, the defendant was paid a sum of Rs. nearly 11 crores as consideration for (i) brand acquisition (ii) copyright acquisition (iii) trademark acquisition (iv) technology transfer and (v) Inventory transfer. Thus, all rights...
Ashok Sharma and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ1063
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The six petitioners are the fathers of six children who lost their lives on 06.06.1999 in what is known as 'The Vikas Nagar Drowning Tragedy'. The six boys who lost their lives and whose fathers have filed the present writ petition were between 14 to 17 years of age.2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had arranged an annual training camp of the NCC w.e.f. 30.05.1997 to 09.06.1997 at Asha Ram Vedic Inter College, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, U.P. The six boys Along with other fellow cadets had gone to attend the said training camp. Part of the training included the exercise of firing at a firing range which was at village Dhimawala near the Yamuna River. On 06.06.1999, some of the companies of the student cadets went for a firing exercise in the firing range at about 6.00 a.m. in the morning. Lt. Col. D.K. Bansal, who was the Commandant of that camp, had given clear instructions to all the in charges of the camps as well as the students that no student should be allowed to ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Goyal M.G. Gases Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Del)305; [2008]159ITR303(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 21st July, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi in ITA No. 811 (Del) of 2002 relevant for the assessment year 1998-99.2. The Revenue has raised three substantial questions of law. The first substantial question of law reads as follows:-Whether the ITAT was correct in law in allowing depreciation of RS.1,21,26,481/- to the assessed at the rate of 100% on tankers3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Revenue that a similar question of law had arisen in the case of this assessed in ITA No. 1052/2006 and the decision of this Court was not in favor of the Revenue. It is submitted that the Revenue has preferred an SLP before the Supreme Court. Following the decision in ITA No. 1052/2006, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.4. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue relates to the deletion of an addition of Rs. 4...
Smt. Shumita Didi Sandhu Vs. Mr. Sanjay Singh Sandhu and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ697
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaintiff is the wife of the defendant No. 1 and daughter-in-law of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. For some reasons her matrimonial alliance with the defendant No. 1 has not been blissful. There are allegations of extra marital relations by the plaintiff against the defendant No. 1 and vice versa. Interestingly, both the spouses virtually accept the accusations leveled against each other, if not overtly, at least tacitly. At this stage, having regard to the nature of present proceedings, it would not be necessary to dig deep into these accusations. Suffice is to mention that though they have not put an end to this jural relationship, they have not been living as husband and wife for quite some time and there exists no bonding between the two. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly dispossessing her from suit property bearing No. 18-A, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi. Reason for impleading her in-laws in t...
Gajendra Haldea Vs. State of the Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ1; 2007LC(DEL)1429
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This writ petition, filed as a Public Interest Litigation, seeks a declaration that Section 20(9) of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 (DERA) is unconstitutional and void to the extent that it envisages the creation of private monopolies in the power sector. The Delhi Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules 2001, issued by the Government of the NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) by notification 20.11.2001 and the policy directions issued by the GNCTD by its notification dated 22.11.2001, are challenged as being ultra virus the DERA. The fourth prayer is for a direction to the GNCTD to 'create an enabling framework that would facilitate competition in generation and supply of electricity through the use of transmission and distribution networks upon payment of wheeling charges.' The petitioner had also challenged the validity of Section 3(2) DERA to the extent it permitted the creation of a one-member Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC). However, during the hea...
Shri Brij NaraIn Aggarwal Vs. Sh. Anup Kumar Goyal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Delhi254; 2007(97)DRJ433
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff, husband of deceased Mrs. Mithlesh Aggarwal, after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act (Amendment Act 2005) whereby Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 was amended.2. The defendant has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC submitting that the suit was not maintainable and no right accrued upon the plaintiff after amendment of the Act and the partition of the disputed property had already taken place. The amended Act was not applicable. A prayer is made for rejection of the suit.3. In order to appreciate the contention of both the parties, the brief narration of the relevant facts is necessary.4. A civil suit bearing No. 1717/1984 was filed by defendant No. 1 and 2 for partition of the properties left behind by Mr. Pran Nath Goyal. In the suit, wife of Mr. Pran Nath Goyal and other sons and daughters including the wife of the plaintiff were the parties. During the pendency of the suit, ...
Rajib Mukhopadhyaya and ors. Vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT321; 2007(97)DRJ273
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. These group of writ petitions challenge the virus of Rule 24(2) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as DCS Rules) as amended on 6th August, 1997 and 1st April, 2005. The Rule as amended and standing at present reads as follows:-24(2). In case of vacancy in a housing society including group housing society where layout and building plans have been approved by the competent authority, the same shall be filled by the committee by notifying it in leading daily newspaper of Delhi in Hindi and English. In case the number of applications are more than the notified vacancies the membership shall be finalised through draw of lot in the presence of authorized representative of the Registrar. The above rule was further amended on 1st April, 2005, which reads as follows:-24(2). In case of vacancy in a housing society including group housing society the same shall be filled by the committee by notifying it in leading daily newspaper of Delhi in...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »