Delhi Court May 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.
Devender Singh Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ139
S. Muralidhar, J.Introduction1.1 These three cases involve a common question of law concerning the scope of the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') to quash the criminal proceedings where the offences involved include that of forgery and use of forged documents as defined under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'). In each of these petitions filed by the accused, the quashing of the proceedings is sought on the basis that their disputes with the complainants have been settled. This plea is opposed by the prosecution on the ground that there is evidence in each of the cases in the form of a report by the Forensic Science Laboratory ('FSL') to prove the offences independent of the evidence of the complaint. It is urged that the powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to quash the proceedings involving such non- compoundable offences. 1.2 In Jugal Kishore Sharma v. State 2008 (1) JCC 754 where a si...
inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ513
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-grant of either the rent free accommodation or the House Rent Allowance (for short 'HRA') only by reason of a decision of the respondents that such facility is extendable only to a certain percentage of persons on the strength of the cadre for a particular town.2. The petitioner was selected as a Sub-Inspector/Exe. In the CISF in pursuance to a letter dated 1.9.1988. The initial pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 1,400.00 per month in the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-40-1800 EB-50-2300 'plus usual allowances as admissible and sanctioned by the Central Government from time to time'. The letter also provided for the provisions of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the Rules as also any other relevant rules and regulations which may be framed by the Central Government from time to time to apply to the petitioner.3. The petitioner was transferred from the CISF Unit Civil ...
Krishna Texport Industries Ltd. Vs. Dcm Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: IV(2008)BC627; [2008]114CompCas113(Delhi); (2008)4CompLJ177(Del); 150(2008)DLT259; 2008(104)DRJ101; [2009]89SCL151(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A conflict of judicial view between the Bombay High Court and the Gujarat High Court in respect of the power of the company court Under Section 391(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) to stay criminal proceedings has given rise to the present appeal.2. The commercial relationship between the appellant and the respondent started with an Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD) of Rs. 2.50 crores being placed by the appellant with the respondent under two separate agreements dated 26.9.1997 and 03.10.1997 by way of two separate cheques of Rs. 1.25 lac each which were duly encashed. The said ICDs were for a period of 120 days and the respondent company were liable to repay the same before the expiry of the said period along with interest @25.5% per annum. In case of default, the rate of interest was to be enhanced by an additional interest of 11% per annum. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent failed to re-pay the ICD with i...
L.G. Electronics (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ537; (2008)16VST361(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. This judgment is in respect of two writ petitions. The first is Writ Petition (Civil) No. 17423 of 2006 in which the prayer of the Petitioner is for quashing Order No. 449 dated 7th November, 2006 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax under the provisions of Section 46 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short the DST Act) in respect of the assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 (three years). Section 46 of the DST Act deals with the suo motu revisionary powers of the Commissioner of Sales Tax and according to the Petitioner, neither the Commissioner nor his delegate, the Joint Commissioner, had any jurisdiction to pass the order since the DST Act was repealed by the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (the VAT Act) which came into force with effect from 1st April, 2005.2. The second is Writ Petition (Civil) No. 17391 of 2006 in which the prayer of the Petitioner is for setting aside Order No. 437 dated 20th October, 2006 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Sa...
Kanwal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ711
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman who served Indian Army for almost 18 years from 13.11.1963 to 30.11.1981. After his retirement he was re-employed in the CRPF on 17.4.1982. 2. On his retirement from Indian Army he was granted pension @ 192/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.1981. After Fourth Pay Commission the pension made admissible to the petitioner was enhanced by Rs. 375/- per month. Accordingly, the petitioner started getting pension by Rs. 449/- per month. 3. The respondent issued a circular dated 11.9.1987 whereby they decided to withdraw the enhanced portion of the pension made admissible to similarly placed re-employed persons like the petitioner. It was decided to re-fix the pay of the petitioner which was also made admissible to him at the time of his re-employment by reducing the enhanced portion of the pension from his salary w.e.f. 01.1.1986. The persons aggrieved by the manner in which their pension was revised approached the Apex Court for redressal of th...
Tuncay Alankus Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ488
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is to an order dated 19th January 2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Delhi in CBI Case No. 3(A) of ACU (1)/New Delhi titled 'CBI v. C.K. Ramakrishnan and Ors.'. 2. The petitioner who is a Turkish national is facing trial for the offences under Sections 120-B read with 409 IPC and alternatively Sections 120-B read with 420 IPC. By the impugned order the learned Special Judge rejected the petitioner's plea for replacing the interpreter provided to him in the aforementioned case with a more competent one and for a direction to restart the trial thereafter in compliance with Sections 228, 278, 279 and 282 CrPC.3. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a charge sheet on 26th December 1997 alleging that 9 accused persons, including the Petitioner, had entered into a criminal conspiracy to defr...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Renu Devi W/O Late Shri Shyam Rish ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1921; 2008(104)DRJ308
V.B. Gupta, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as the 'Act') arises out of the award dated 15.02.08 passed by Sh. Chander Shekhar, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal'), Delhi awarding the compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- along with the interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization to the claimants.2. The brief facts of the case relevant for present appeal are that on 12.10.05 at 11.45 am when the deceased, Sh. Shyam Rishideo reached near Priya Dairy, B-5/263, Sector 7, Divider Road Rohini, Delhi, all of a sudden the offending bus No. DL-1-PB-1647 being driven by Sh. Hari Singh, in a rash and negligent manner, lack in proper lookouts and in utmost high speed came and hit the deceased violently, as a result of which deceased fell down on the road and sustained multiple fatal injuries. The deceased was taken to BSA Hospital, Delhi, where he was declared 'brought dead'.3. The claimants ...
Shri Puran Mal Gupta and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ192
Manmohan, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C.) for setting aside the order dated 11th March, 2008 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in as much as it directed registration of FIR against the Petitioners.2. Briefly stated the material facts of this case are that on 22nd February, 2005 the Complainant alleges that he was restrained by his mother, two brothers and the Petitioners from entering his shop-cum-residence No. 3, Main Market, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the said premises. The Complainant further states that he reported the matter to the local police, but it took no action. The Complainant also alleges that on 28th February, 2005 he was not only dispossessed from the said premises, but his goods were also removed by the aforesaid relatives and the Petitioners. The Complainant's case is that despite reporting the matter to the police, the local police took no act...
Brahm Prakash Gupta Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ199
Aruna Suresh, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as Code) the petitioner has sought setting aside of the order dated 11.7.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge thereby rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for directions to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code filed along with his complaint dated 10.1.2007 for investigation with further prayer to direct the SHO of the concerned police station to lodge an FIR against the accused persons for the criminal offences which they allegedly committed, under appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal code. Further relief sought is issuance of the order for summoning of the accused person and to take cognizance and conduct the trial. 2. Complainant had purchased a car vide No. DL-2F AH 0100 make Skoda in the month of November 2004 from respondent No. 1 the Managing Director of M/s Silvertone Motors Pvt. Ltd. which was insured with respondent No. 4 Tata AIG I...
Team India Advisory Ltd. Vs. Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Memorial
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ351
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Plaintiff in this case sues the defendant for a permanent injunction restraining it from letting out the First Floor of the building at B14/A Qutub Institutional Area, Delhi-16 to any third party. The reliefs as originally claimed were the following:(a) Grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant from letting out the First Floor of building at B-14/A Qutub Institutional Area, Delhi-16 shown in the site plan to third party during the tenancy of the plaintiff;(b) Grant mandatory injunction directing the defendant to allow the plaintiff to use and occupy the premises let out to the plaintiff for the period of tenancy after excluding the period during which the premises remained under sealing.2. During the course of hearing learned senior counsel on behalf of the plaintiff, on 19.5.2008, upon instructions, stated that prayer B for mandatory injunction to allow the use and occupy the premises would not be pressed and the same was accordingly given up; that wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »