Delhi Court July 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.
Sh. Suresh Kakkar and anr. Vs. Sh. Mahender Nath Kakkar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: 152(2008)DLT56; 2008(105)DRJ211; (2008)152PLR58
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. An interesting question arises for consideration in this application. The question is - whether a plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the plea taken by the defendants that the present suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the said Code ?2. It is alleged by the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 (applicants) that the plaintiff No. 1 had earlier instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction being Suit No. 10/2004 titled as Shri Suresh Kakkar v. Shri Mahender Nath Kakkar and Ors. In that suit, which is pending before the Civil Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, the plaintiff No. 1 has sought a perpetual injunction against some of the defendants herein from selling or alienating the suit property. It is alleged by the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 that all the material and substantial allegations made in the present plaint and in the plaint of Suit No. 10/2004 are identical. It is also submitted that the alleged causes of action i...
Paharpur 3p (a Division of Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited) Vs. Dalmia ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: (2008)3CompLJ554(Del); 2008(105)DRJ236; [2008]88SCL298(Delhi)
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. The petitioner seeks the winding up of the respondent company by invoking Sections 433(e), 434 & 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the 'Act') on the ground that the respondent is indebted to the petitioner to the tune of Rs 57,42,572.41p. besides interest, which which the respondent company is unable to pay despite service of a statutory notice.2. As per the averments contained in the petition, the petitioner M/s Paharpur 3P (hereinafter called the 'petitioner'), is a division of M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. and is in the business of manufacturing , marketing and exporting Flexible Packaging laminates in Roll and Pouch form. The respondent company, M/s Dalmia Consumer Care Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called the 'company'), placed various purchase orders from time to time on the petitioner for supply of flexible laminates and pouches , inter-alia, for its FMCG product 'Zing' and 'Chabaaza'. The petitioner supplied to the Company Flexible laminates and ...
S.K. Brothers Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR272(Delhi); 152(2008)DLT239; (2008)152PLR63
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The execution petition 234/2008 has been filed for execution of the arbitral award dated 16th January, 2008 and in para 7 of the execution application 'amount of suit Along with interest as per decree or any other relief granted by the decree' is stated to be Rs 15,80,833.61 with interest at 18 % per annum from 2nd July, 2008 till the date of realization of the amount. The arbitral award is engrossed on stamp paper of Rs 500/-. 2. Execution petition 235/2008 has been filed for execution of an arbitral award dated 20th December, 2007. In para 7 of the application the 'amount of suit Along with interest as per decree or any other relief granted by the decree' is stated to be Rs 19,02,725/- with interest at 18% per annum from 2nd July, 2008 till the date of realisation of the amount. The arbitral award is engrossed on stamp paper of Rs 800/-.3. Both the execution petitions came up before the court first on 1st July, 2008. It was pointed out to the counsel for the ...
Sunita Vs. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: 151(2008)DLT192
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 24th August, 2005 passed in WP(Crl) No. 1292/2003. That writ petition was filed by Smt. Sunita, widow of one Mohinder, who died while in police custody on 15th August, 1999. In the writ petition Smt. Sunita sought a writ, order or direction to the respondent-Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi to award compensation to the members of the family of the deceased Mohinder. By the impugned order the learned single Judge awarded a sum of Rs. 3 lacs as ex gratia compensation. Being aggrieved Smt. Sunita has preferred this appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the learned single Judge is wholly inadequate and the meagre sum of Rs. 3 lacs awarded after a period of six years of the custodial death is no compensation in the eye of law.2. The unfortunate events which led to the present proceedings may be shortly stated:Mohinder, th...
Dr. Kamal Kishore Kalra Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: 151(2008)DLT546; 2008(105)DRJ226
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) is filed to challenge the order dated 16.10.2006 and the notice framed on 28.11.2006 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, in respect of a non- cognizable offence under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, and the order dated 17.02.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 6/2007, whereby the aforesaid order dated 28.11.2006 has been confirmed, and for quashing the proceedings before the learned MM in the aforesaid case.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP in the matter and also perused the trial Court record, which has been summoned for today.3. The case of the prosecution is that on the receipt of some secret information that a person will come near Sarai Rohilla flyover on 27.04.2001 at about 03:00 p.m. with huge quantity of Govt. medicines which are stolen with intention to sell them, it...
Sh. Surender Pal S/O Sh. Devender Singh Vs. Smt. Kanwaljit Kaur W/O Sh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: II(2008)DMC183
V.B. Gupta, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Husband against the judgment dated 20.01.05 passed by Sh. J.P.S. Malik, Additional districts Judge, New Delhi whereby the Trial Court dismissed the divorce petition of the Appellant on the ground of cruelty/desertion.2. Brief facts leading to the dispute are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Sikh rites and ceremonies on 24.01.99 at Gurudwara Rakab Ganj, New Delhi. The Appellant and Respondent were relatives and Respondent is the daughter of maternal uncle of the Appellant. Out of the wedlock between the parties, a female child was born on 20.10.99.3. It is alleged that immediately after the marriage, the Respondent started making demands from the Appellant to live separately from his parents and in the alternative shift to Dehradun where parents of the Respondent were residing and start his business there. Respondent used to pick up quarrel on petty matters. Soon after the parties returned fro...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Anjali Dua
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Del)183
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order dt. 13th Aug., 2007, passed in ITA No. 4827/Del/2004 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal'). The case pertains to the asst. yr. 1996-97.2. The entire issue is with regard to the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the 'said Act'). The said notice was issued on 28th March, 2003, by the then ITO, Ludhiana. It was the contention of the assessee that the said notice was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the assessee had shifted from Ludhiana to New Delhi in July 1997. The contention on behalf of the Revenue was that the notice under Section 148 of the said Act pertains to the asst. yr. 1996-97 which relates to a period when the assessee was residing at Ludhiana and the assessee had also filed her return at Ludhiana in respect of the said assessment year. It was therefore, contended on behalf of the Revenue that the notice issue...
Keshav Shares and Stock Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Del)631
Radar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the notice dt. 26th March, 2007 issued by the AO, Ward No. 5(2), New Delhi, under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act'). The challenge is also to the consequential assessment under Section 143(3) of the said Act r/w Section 147 made on 28th Dec, 2007 whereby the assessee's income has been computed at Rs. 2,05,11,086 as against a returned income of Rs. 4,086. On the basis of the said assessment, a demand on account of Income-tax and interest under Section 234B amounting to Rs. 1,51,38,235 has been raised. The petitioner states that because of the said assessment order, it was compelled to file an appeal before the CIT(A) and the said appeal is pending. The stay that was prayed for by the petitioner before the appellate authority was rejected.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the main ground for challenging the issuance of the notice dt. 26th March, 2007 and the con...
Stv Enterprises Ltd. Vs. ShIn Satellite Public Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: [2009]148CompCas210(Delhi); [2009]91SCL276(Delhi)
T.S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the company court in Company Petition No. 128 of 2005 whereby the said court has admitted the winding up petition filed against the appellant and appointed the official liquidator attached to the court as the provisional liquidator with a direction to forthwith take over all the assets and books of account of the appellant-company. The appellant has been further restrained from transferring, alienating, encumbering or dealing with any of its movable or immovable assets, bank accounts and other securities, except for the purpose of, and to the extent it is necessary to meet the liability which the appellant-company owes to the respondent and to meet the expenses in the usual course of business. The court has, however, directed that the order passed by it would stand vacated in case the appellant-company pays to the respondent-creditor the outstanding debts quantified at US$ 125700 as on September 6, 2006, with interest at 12...
Ram Phal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: 151(2008)DLT452; 2008(105)DRJ18
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, a dismissed conductor of Delhi Transport Corporation, seeks quashing of his dismissal order contained in letters dated 20th September, 1985, 20th May, 1986 and 3rd March, 1987 and he seeks a declaration that Regulation 14 of DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulation, 1952 is ultra vires, void and vocative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also claimed that he is deemed to be in continuous employment and, thereforee, he is entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits including back wages and continuation in service.2. The brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with respondent No. 2 on 24th April, 1982 and he was given Badge No. 12652. During his service with the respondent No. 2, petitioner fell sick and he was absent from 19th May, 1985 to 5th June, 1985. He alleged that he had submitted a leave application to the respondent...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »