Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 5 of about 251 results (0.020 seconds)itc Ltd. Vs. State Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ637; 2009(243)ELT24(Del)
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeks the quashing of Complaint No. 528 of 2004 pending in the Court of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate ('SMM'), Shahdara, Delhi under Section 33 of the Standards Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 ('1985 Act').2. The facts in brief are that an inspection was carried out on 4th December, 2003 in a shop M/s. Roshan Traders No. 19/2006, Sarai Basti, Delhi of Shri Pritam. The report of inspection states as under:Packages of Gold Flake, 2001 in 10's manufactured by ITC Ltd. 37, J.L. Nehru Rd, Kolkata not bearing MRP inclusive of all Taxes on the pack.3. On the basis of the above inspection Complaint No. 528 of 2004 was filed in the court of the SMM against Shri Pritam Kumar Jain the proprietor of M/s. Roshan Traders.4. On 7th July, 2006 Shri Pritam was present before the SMM and disclosed that the Petitioner here, i.e. ITC Limited was the manufacturer of the commodity in questio...
Tag this Judgment!Fortune Stones Ltd. and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies, Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2008]142CompCas548(Delhi); (2008)3CompLJ262(Del); [2008]84SCL479(Delhi)
ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeks the quashing of Complaint Case No. 670/2004 pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Delhi titled 'Registrar of Companies v. Fortune Stones Ltd. and Ors.' under Section 224(7) read with Section 629A of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act).2. The Petitioner No. 1 Company had appointed M/s T.S. Kakkar & Co. as their first statutory auditors on 8th January 1996. The accounts were audited by the said auditors till the year ending 31st March 1999. Thereafter M/s T.S. Kakkar & Co., expressed their inability to audit the accounts of the Company. Accepting the verbal resignation of T.S. Kakkar & Co., a Resolution was passed in the Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company on 8th June 2000 resolving to convene an extra-ordinary general meeting (EGM) to appoint new auditors. At the EGM held on 3rd July 2000 M/s D. Kothari & Co. were appointed a...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sunita and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2009ACJ1460; 148(2008)DLT453; 2008(3)SLJ510(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Ram Singh, husband of respondent No. 1 in FAO.No.230/2007 and father of respondents 2 to 5 and Ram Kumar, husband of respondent No. 1 in FAO.No.231/2007 and father of respondents 2 to 5 in said appeal were admittedly employees of the appellant. The two were scavengers and used to perform the duties of sweeping and cleaning the properties of the appellant.2. 10.6.2002 was an unfortunate date in their lives. A sewer line belonging to NDMC but servicing the apartments owned by the appellant got choked. The service line had to be flushed for the reason domestic sewage including human excreta was not being flushed from the toilets in the buildings owned by the appellants or if flushed, was overflowing within the precincts of the complex.3. Ram Kumar and Ram Singh were made to clear and clean the sewer line. Without proper gear and tools or safety equipment, when the two entered the sewer line for flushing the same to remove the obstruction, both died inside the sewer...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. Amita Nand Aggarwal Through Its Propri ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2008Delhi114; 2008(1)ARBLR588(Delhi)
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this order I shall dispose of an application under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the applicant/petitioner for condensation of delay in filing the Petition/Objections under Section 34 of the Act beyond 90 days.2. It is undisputed that under Section 34 of the Act, Objections can be filed by the aggrieved party within 90 days of receipt of award and this period can be extended by the Court on showing reasonable causes, by another period of 30 days and not beyond.3. It is stated by the applicant that the impugned award was published by the Arbitrator on 16th October, 2006. The Petition under Section 34 of the Act was initially filed in the Court on 12th February, 2007, about 20 days after expiry of 90 days. Registry raised certain objections against the Petition. These objections of the Registry were removed and the Petition under Section 34 of the Act was re-filed on 28th Februar...
Tag this Judgment!Shri M.R. Sahni Vs. Mrs. Doris Randhawa
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2008Delhi110; 149(2008)DLT635; 2008(104)DRJ246
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1 The appellant has suffered 2 concurrent decrees of ejectment and mesne profits against him. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 5.12.2007 affirming the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge dated 21.5.2007 instant second appeal has been filed. 2. Notwithstanding various questions framed in the memo of appeal at the hearing today, learned senior counsel for the appellant urges that 4 substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the instant appeal. 3. The first substantial question of law sought to be projected by learned Counsel for the appellant is: whether the suit for ejectment was barred under Order IX Rule 9 CPC on account of an earlier suit for ejectment being dismissed in default and not being restored? The second question sought to be projected is whether by the act of filing a petition for eviction before the learned Rent Controller and alleging that the rent of the suit property was Rs. 3500/- per month did notice Ex.PW1/2 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. Surender Dogra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 148(2008)DLT253
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The above captioned 3 petitions raise similar questions of law and fact and hence are being decided by a common order. 2. CM(M) No. 1384/2005 and CM(M) No. 1412/2005 lay challenge to identically worded orders, both dated 22.12.2004, passed in two suits filed by the respondents. 3. CM(M) No. 2362/2005 lays a challenge to a similar order but dated 4.5.2005. 4. It is not in dispute that DDA was a defendant in all the 3 suits and was proceeded against ex-parte on 30.7.1998 in suits which are the subject matter of CM(M) No. 1384/2005 and CM(M) No. 1412/2005. In the suit which is forming subject matter of CM(M) No. 2362/2005, DDA was proceeded against ex-parte on 10.1.1996. 5. In all the 3 suits, applications under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC were filed. Averments in the applications are identical save and except reference to the date when DDA was proceeded against ex-parte. 6. All applications were accompanied by applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying that...
Tag this Judgment!Zal Balsara Vs. State of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ65
ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the Complaint Case No. 136/1997 titled Plant Protection Officer/Licensing Officer v. Singla Agencies and Ors. under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 ('Act'). In the array of the accused in the complaint the Petitioner was shown as accused No. 4 with the name 'Jai Balsara' although it should read as 'Zal Balsara. ' 2. The complaint states that the Insecticides Inspector, Government of Delhi visited the shop of M/s. Singhla Agencies, 29/1, Shakti Nagar, Delhi for inspection of records of storage of insecticides being sold in the said shop. The Insecticides Inspector purchased three packets of ALLTHRIN 4 W.W Mats. The samples were sealed in the presence of the accused. One of the samples was sent to the Government Analyst. The report revealed that the sample was misbranded. Paras 7 and 8 of the complaint read as under:7. That...
Tag this Judgment!Sap Ag and anr. Vs. Somaya Kanti Dutta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ742; LC2008(2)125; 2008(36)PTC598(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a suit filed for, inter alia, a decree of permanent injunction, infringement of copyright, delivery up and rendition of accounts , and to restrain the defendants from illegally using the software products of the plaintiffs. Summons of the suit were issued and duly served upon the defendants. Nobody appeared on behalf of the defendants and on 17.09.2007, the defendants were directed to be proceeded against ex parte. The plaintiff was directed to lead its ex parte evidence by way of filing evidence affidavit(s). 2. The plaintiff has filed the affidavit of Mr Ravi Lal Thapa (PW 1), by way of evidence. The said Mr. Ravi Lal Thapa is the constituted Attorney of the plaintiff company. The documents have also been exhibited as PW-1/1 to PW- 1/8. 3. As stated in the plaint the plaintiff No. 1 is a company incorporated in Germany and is involved in developing enterprise scale solutions. The Plaintiff No. 2 is the Indian subsidiary of the plaintiff No. 1. The def...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. V. Vishalakshy and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2009ACJ1654
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned award dated 21/9/2004 assailing the findings of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation. The brief summary of facts to deal with the contentions of the parties, are as under:Master V. Mani aged 16 years studying in class XII in DTEA School, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi suffered fatal injuries on 22.9.1999 at about 1:30 pm at the crossing of Ring Road and Andrews Ganj. On the said date he was traveling in bus bearing registration No. DEP-2010 and was going to his residence from his school. He was standing near the gate with other passengers. When the bus reached near the crossing of Ring Road and Andrews Ganj, another bus bearing registration No. DEP-8748 was already standing at the red light signal at the crossing. Sh. Dalveer Singh while driving the offending bus rashly and negligently hit the already stationary bus on its right side while trying to overtake and go ahead. As a result th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Venkateswarlu Vs. Regional Manager, Sebi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2008)2CompLJ205(Del); [2008]83SCL397(Delhi)
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner making following prayers:(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent No. 1 to conduct an enquiry regarding the price manipulation/inside trading of the respondent No. 2 scrip during the said period.(b) direct the respondent No. 1 to file a report on the subject in this Hon'ble Court for further directions.(c) pass such any other or further order/direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The petitioner has stated that he was a small investor in the shares and the price of scrip of respondent No. 2 company fluctuated vigorously first upward and then downward. The petitioner had purchased 3,000 shares of respondent No. 2 company at the rate of Rs. 476.34 and had to sell it at the rate of Rs. 454.52 thus incurring a loss of Rs. 65,451.20. He made complaint to SEBI (re...
Tag this Judgment!