Delhi Court November 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 10 of about 102 results (0.060 seconds)Union of India (Uoi) Through Commissioner of Police and Principal/Addi ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT202
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 13th January, 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 2440 of 1997.2. The Respondent was selected for the post of Provisional Sub Inspector (PSI) in the Delhi Police. He was sent to the Police Training School on 15th May, 1995 to undergo the mandatory training.3. During the training period, it was noted that the Respondent was taking some treatment for mental depression. Apart from this, it was noted that he was not able to eat properly or perform any outdoor activities; he could not sit the full duration of the class or concentrate on his studies. From 17th May, 1995 till 27th June, 1995, the Respondent was absent from training on as many as seven occasions. On one occasion, he was absent from training for as long as eleven days. During the training period, the Respondent even requested for exemption from training but this was rejected by the concerned authorities on 14t...
Tag this Judgment!Alpha Drug India Ltd. Vs. Perfect Drugs Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]90SCL54(Delhi)
Gita Mittal, J.1. This petition was filed by the petitioner under Sections 433-439 of the Companies Act, 1956 praying for winding up of M/s. Perfect Drugs Ltd. After issuance of notice to show cause on 17-4-1996, the respondent had entered appearance and stated on 10-11 -1998 that the matter was pending consideration in a reference made before BIFR. Subsequently on 6-11-1999 it was stated that the company stood declared sick by the BIFR. Consequently, by an order passed on 20-8-1999, the matter was adjourned sine die.2. It is stated by Mr. Rajeev Bahl, learned standing counsel for the Official Liquidator that another petition under Sections 433-439 of the Companies Act, 1956 was filed in this Court which was registered as Com. Pet. No. 509/ 1998. The pendency of the present case was not brought to the notice of the court. However by an order dated 21-3-2008, this Court had directed that the respondent company be wound up.3. Certainly two proceedings for the winding up of the same compa...
Tag this Judgment!Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company Vs. the Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Del)450; [2009]308ITR38(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 29.03.2004 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-18, New Delhi under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'), re-opening the assessment in respect of assessment year 1998-99. It is also directed against the order dated 02.03.2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-18, New Delhi on the objections filed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner had filed its return of income on 30.11.1998 declaring nil income. In the course of the assessment proceedings the petitioner was required to submit certain information which included details with regard to the share application money received by the petitioner in the relevant year. By a letter dated 05.03.2001 (Annexure P-2) the petitioner submitted various details including bank statements, particulars of cheques received towards share application money and confirmatio...
Tag this Judgment!Bougainvillea Multiplex and Entertainment Center Private Limited Vs. S ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT687
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 16.10.2006 passed by ADJ whereby an application of the petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') for referring the parties to arbitration was dismissed. The petitioner filed a review against the said order, which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.2.2007.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent in order to open a photo sticker shop approached the petitioner to take on lease a shop in NOIDA Entertainment Centre. A Term Sheet Agreement was entered into between the parties on 15.2.2005 and respondent paid a sum of Rs. 3,97,196/- to the petitioner through cheque as interest free security deposit. The shop was promised to be handed over to the respondent in March 2005. The date was described in the agreement as tentative. Respondent submitted that on the basis of this assurance of the petitioner that shop woul...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. M. Abdul Haque and ors. Vs. Birla Yamaha Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT460
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this common order bearing Crl. M.C. Nos. 2235/07 and 1399/08 filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint case No. 705/4/2004 and complaint case No. 708/4/2004 in Crl. M.C. No. 2235/07 and CC No. 6224/1/04 in Crl. M.C. No. 1399/08 filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are being disposed of. The fundamental question raised by the petitioners in the present case is as to whether the petitioners, who are not the signatories of the dishonoured cheques, can be made to face criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act simply on account of the fact that once the petitioner No. 2 was partner in M/s Universal Engineering Co. on whose behalf one of their partner had issued the cheques in his individual and personal capacity and from his own saving bank account. Before deciding the said question it would be appropriate to give brief facts of the case as under:The p...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Jindal Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT588
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of complaint case No. 399/2004 filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 138 r/w with Section 142 of the N.I. Act. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition as stated by the petitioner are that the respondent No. 2 is a body corporate constituted by the Central Government to promote industrialization through the process of giving financial assistance to small and medium industries by way of loan advances as per the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act 1955. In the complaint filed by the said Corporation i.e., Delhi Financial Corporation under Section 138 r/w Section 142 N.I. Act, the petitioner has been impleaded asaccused No. 2 being Director of M/s. AAR EM Alloys (P) Ltd., Mr. Ramesh Chand Jindal, Director of the said company as accused No. 1 and M/s. AAR EM Alloys (P) Ltd., as accused No. 3. It is alleged in the complaint that accused No. 3 i.e., M...
Tag this Judgment!Narender Mann Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT387
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. This order shall dispose of petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of bail in FIR No. 200/06 registered under Sections 302/120-B/201/34 IPC read with Section 25/54/59 Arms Act with PS Mangol Puri. Brief facts which led to the registration of the said FIR against the petitioner and other accused persons are that on 21.3.2006 at about 4.30 p.m. the complainant Smt. Kanta Devi wife of the deceased Shri S.N. Gupta was present in her house along with her husband when she heard call bell and in response, she went to the main gate of her house where she found a boy aged 25-30 years wearing glasses/specs, having beard with black cap and one hanging bag. On enquiry, the said boy told the complainant that he brought a courier for S.N. Gupta. When asked to deliver the courier to the complainant, then he said, he had come from the bank and courier would be delivered only to Mr. S.N. Gupta and not to her. At this,...
Tag this Judgment!S. Makhan Singh Vs. Smt. Amarjeet Bali
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT211; 2008(106)DRJ705
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22nd November, 2007 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby an application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.2. The brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent filed an Eviction Petition alleging that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of premises at Rs. 500/- per month including water and electricity charges. This tenancy was from month-to-month. The petitioner stopped paying rent to the respondent from January, 1989. The respondent then sent a legal notice dated 17.10.2000 claiming arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy of the petitioner.3. This notice was duly replied by the petitioner vide reply dated 9th November, 2006 wherein petitioner denied the title of the respondent over the suit property and set up a title in himself and his wife. After this denial of title by the petitioner herein, the respondent filed a suit for possession of t...
Tag this Judgment!Kavita Khorwal Vs. the Delhi University and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT755
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Courts in India have often traversed questions relating to the principle of equality and affirmative action. This constant engagement with affirmative action policies has not only raised questions relating to their validity and reach, but also crucial questions about the beneficiaries of such policies. This petition raises one such short, yet significant question.2. The petitioner avers that she is an originally listed Delhi Scheduled Caste (hereafter 'SC') candidate and appeared for the LLB entrance examination conducted by the first respondent ('the University') on 20.06.2004 She was at No. 118 in the SC category ranking and it is stated that she could not obtain admission in the course due to inclusion of ineligible SC candidates belonging to States/ Union territories (UTs) other than Delhi. It is alleged that by virtue of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India and notifications issued under those provisions, only Delhi listed scheduled caste candid...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Projects and Marketing Ltd. Vs. Tirupati Trade Comm. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]89SCL411(Delhi)
Gita Mittal, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 8th March, 2007 passed by the Company Law Board in a petition under Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Both the parties in the instant case are companies incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The respondent company claimed to be owner of 7500 equity shares of the appellant company purchased in 1994, bearing the following certificate numbers:2794, 5134, 6752, 2044, 12683, 8075, 3422, 8070, 8069, 8068, 8071, 8067,7537, 12760, 12507, 12844, 6292, 2572, 2146, 2811, 11990, 3105, 2029, 2728, 8546, 3945, 6369, 5362, 5361, 20530, 6198, 8086, 12494, 17168, 2281, 2092, 5984, 2033, 3609, 8214, 2422, 2819, 2796, 2788, 2169, 6209, 17601, 12597, 2252, 3420, 2251, 2225, 3420, 2251, 2225, 2458, 6126, 8757, 8205, 6066, 6067, 534, 2299, 6394, 2658, 6070, 2714, 7477, 7478, 7512, 10249, 10250, 10251By a registered letter dated 5th December, 1994, the respondent informed the appellant that these share c...
Tag this Judgment!