Delhi Court January 2008 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.
Sanjay Gupta Vs. Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ234
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of I.A. No. 4680/2001 along with is Nos. 638/2002 and 4586/2002 all filed by plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC.2. The plaintiff filed the present suit for ejectment of the defendant who was a tenant of the plaintiff in an immovable property apart from making a claim for damages and mesne profits for the continued use and occupation of the premises by the defendant after the termination of the lease of the defendant.3. The admitted position is that the plaintiff was the landlord of the defendant in respect of property bearing No. 14, Anand Lok, New Delhi. The parties entered into a registered lease deed dated 18th December 1998 whereby the said property was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,50,000/- for a period of 3 years commencing from 5th November 1998 and ending on 31st October 2001. However, the rent was to be paid with effect from 15th November 1998. The parties also entered into a maintenance agreement on 5th November 199...
Amarjit Singh and anr. Vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(129)ECC131; 2008(155)LC131(Delhi); 2008(226)ELT34(Del)
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the two petitioners seek quashing of a criminal complaint under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) pending against them in the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.2. Relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the case are that on receiving information that the petitioners were importing electronic goods from Hong Kong at grossly undervalued prices and had been submitting invoices showing lower price to Indian Customs authorities at the time of import the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI in short) investigated the matter. After investigation notices were given by the Additional Director General, DRI, New Delhi to the petitioners demanding customs duty amounting to Rs. 25,69,151/- from petitioner no. 1 Amar Jit Singh, who was carrying on the business of electronic goods in the name of M/s Singh Electronics ...
Shri Dharampal Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ197
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition claims compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs each from both the respondents on account of the death of his wife due to electrocution on account of alleged negligence on the part of respondents.2. Petitioner is an employee, a driver with the Delhi Transport Corporation and he was allotted a government accommodation bearing house number E-78, DTC Colony, Shadipur, New Delhi where he was living with his wife, since deceased, and four children. According to him the residents of this colony dry their clothes on roofs/terraces of the houses. It is contended that on 19th July, 1999 at about 10.45 AM, the petitioner's wife, Smt. Bimla, went to the terrace of her house to dry the clothes on an iron wire which was tied to sewer pipes on the terrace floor. The iron wire had electricity and the wife of the petitioner, got electrocuted and died. The petitioner alleged that his wife got electrocuted on account of negligence of the respondents as the electr...
MountaIn Mist Agro India (Pvt.) Ltd. and anr. Vs. S. Subramaniyam
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: III(2008)BC583; 149(2008)DLT40
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.CM No. 114/2008(Exemption)Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.Application stands disposed of.FAO(OS) 2/20081. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.10.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs holding that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. The suit in question was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,25,55,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest. The said suit was founded upon a cheque dated 11.09.2002 allegedly issued by the respondent in favor of the appellant No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 93 lacs which was drawn on the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ootacamund, Tamil Nadu. The aforesaid cheque was, however, dishonoured when presented by the banker with the remarks of the drawee bank - 'Payment stopped by drawer'.2. In the aforesaid suit a leave to defend application was filed by the defe...
Smt. Sudershana Sehdev Vs. Shivalik Builders and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ643
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The present appeal preferred under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises out of the award dated 16.9.2005 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6,51,857/- along with interest @ 6%.2. Before adverting to deal with the contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to give brief facts of the case as under:On 7.1.99, the deceased Sh. Jugal Kishore was going to Mata Vaishno Devi Along with his wife, son-in-law and daughter Ms. Renu Narang in a Maruti Zen bearing registration No. HR-51-7414. The deceased was driving the Maruti Zen at the relevant time and when they reached near Panipat Chungi, a truck bearing registration No. HR-38-A-8498 driven by the driver rashly and negligently hit the Maruti Zen, due to which the deceased suffered grievous injuries and was removed to Civil Hospital, Panipat where he was declared dead.3. Shri Vijay Kinger, counsel for the appellant says that the Tribunal has wrongly dedu...
Shri S.N. Sapara Vs. Shri P.K. Jana and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: 148(2008)DLT428
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. S.N. Sapra has challenged 2 orders passed by the learned Executing Court. Firstly, he challenges the order dated 6.11.2006 under which his objection to the enforceability of the judgment and decree dated 2.9.2004 has been repelled. The second order under challenge is dated 2.12.2006 wherein similar objections filed by him laying a challenge to the decree itself has been repelled by the learned Executing Court. The reason which principally flows in both the orders is that earlier on also, S.N. Sapra had filed objections to the execution of the decree which were dismissed vide order dated 27.5.2005. An additional reason is to be found to the effect that similar pleas were negated when his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed vide order dated 20.5.2005.2. Respondents hereinafter collectively referred to as 'Janas' and S.N. Sapra are at loggerheads with each other since the year 1994.3. Property No. M-38, Chittranjan Park, New Delhi was owned by P.K.J...
Mcd Vs. Delhi Brass and Metal Works Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: 147(2008)DLT243
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By a common order dated 27.3.1997 HTA. No. 139/97 to HTA. No. 141/97 have been disposed of.2. Three petitions have been filed challenging the same order for the reason each appeal related to a different assessment order. I note that the 3 appeals challenged the assessment order dated 31.1.1989 disposing of the two pending proposals finalizing rateable value of the said property at Rs. 55,190/- w.e.f. 1.4.1986 and Rs. 8,62,780/- w.e.f. 2.2.1987.3. Rateable value fixed at Rs. 55,190/- was accepted by the assessed. Challenge in the appeal was to the rateable value fixed w.e.f. 1.4.1986 at Rs. 8,12,780/-.4. The plot in question is B-17, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I. It is held by the assessed under a leasehold tenure which states that in case of sale 50% of the unearned increase would be paid to the assessed.5. The learned assessing officer has thereforee depressed the value of the property in relation to land value by 50%. Learned Additional District Judge has do...
Rishi Kumar Vs. Suman
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: I(2008)DMC355
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner and the respondent are bound by a matrimonial bond. Unfortunately, the marriage has turned sour. A petition for divorce is pending. Respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging that she had no income and that the petitioner was gainfully employed in automobile business being sole proprietor of a workshop M/s. New Milap Auto Engineering Works. She alleged that he was the only son of his parents. She stated that her husband was having an income of Rs. 50,000/- per month. She claimed maintenance in sum of Rs. 33,000/- per month.3. Petitioner refuted each and every assertion made by the respondent. He stated that he was disbanded by his parents. He stated that he was carrying on business as a motor mechanic from a shop at Mangol Puri. He stated that he was earning between Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- per annum. He relied upon his income tax returns.4. In rejoinder the wife pointed out the social and econ...
K.N. Shukla (Dr.) Vs. B.L.A. Chit Fund Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: II(2008)BC549
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner imp leaded as defendant No. 1 in a suit filed by the respondent under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure suffered a decree by default. He failed to cause appearance to be entered when summons in the suit were served.2. He filed an application under Order 37 Rule 4, CPC for setting aside the ex pane decree. The application suffered a dismissal vide impugned order dated 17.1.2003.3. In the application under Order 37 Rule 4, CPC it was pointed out to the learned Judge i.e. it was pleaded that the suit was filed on 17.7.2000. It was listed on 18.7.2000 when summons were issued returnable for 7.8.2000. That process server reported that he went to the address notified for effecting service of the summons on 4.8.2000 when a lady met him and stated that she was the wife of the petitioner but refused to accept the summons. That treating the same to be a service upon him the learned Court proceeded to hold that since he had not entered appearance within th...
Systems and Stamping and Anr. Vs. Employees' Provident Fund Appellate ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: (2008)2LLJ939Del
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The present appeals are directed against the judgment dated January 10,2006 by which the learned single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 20999-21000/2005. The said writ petitions were filed by the appellant impugning the order dated February 23, 2001 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kanpur levying the penalty under Section 14-B of Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act').The appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the appellate authority by its order dated September 7, 2005.2. Short issue raised by the appellant is regarding quantum of penalty imposed under Section 14-B of the Act. The appellant admits defaults in payment of employees Provident Fund during the period December 1989 to February 2000. The period of default in each case varies and we are not required to go into this aspect. The only issue that arises for consideration is the quantum of damages ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »